LecÂture 3 of Michael Sandel’s ever popÂuÂlar course on JusÂtice is now online. Here’s the sumÂmaÂry of mateÂrÂiÂal covÂered by the newÂly added lecÂture. It’s proÂvidÂed by HarÂvard’s course web site:
Part 1 — FREE TO CHOOSE: With humorÂous refÂerÂences to Bill Gates and Michael JorÂdan, Sandel introÂduces the libÂerÂtarÂiÂan notion that redisÂtribÂuÂtive taxation—taxing the rich to give to the poor—is akin to forced labor.
PART 2 — WHO OWNS ME?: StuÂdents first disÂcuss the arguÂments behind redisÂtribÂuÂtive taxÂaÂtion. If you live in a sociÂety that has a sysÂtem of proÂgresÂsive taxÂaÂtion, aren’t you obligÂatÂed to pay your taxÂes? Don’t many rich peoÂple often acquire their wealth through sheer luck or famÂiÂly forÂtune? A group of stuÂdents dubbed “Team LibÂerÂtarÂiÂan” volÂunÂteers to defend the libÂerÂtarÂiÂan phiÂlosÂoÂphy against these objecÂtions.
In LecÂture 3, on libÂerÂtarÂiÂanÂism, a lot of emphaÂsis is placed on the premise that indiÂvidÂuÂals own themÂselves. What does it mean? If they own themÂselves in the sense that they own propÂerÂty, then we’re born unequal because willy nilÂly we come into a world with such givens as brains, ambiÂtion, looks, and famÂiÂlies that are wealthy or poor. If we truÂly own ourÂselves, some of us own a lot less than othÂers.
In arguÂing for M. JorÂdan and Bill Gates’ right to keep what they have made, Sandel notes that JorÂdan has had help in achievÂing sucÂcess from othÂers — his team mates and his coach, eg., — so he may owe them someÂthing. A stuÂdent objects that team mates and coach have already been paid. But nobody menÂtions the parÂticÂuÂlar culÂture, the social arrangeÂment, withÂin which all indiÂvidÂuÂals work, that proÂvides the frameÂwork necÂesÂsary for JorÂdan’s (or Gates’) sucÂcess. IndiÂvidÂuÂals aside, a social sysÂtem exists on its own levÂel and got along fairÂly well with Michael JorÂdan’s basÂketÂball and William Gates’ Microsoft, hard as that is to believe.
Ethics, the funÂdaÂmenÂtal underÂpinÂnings of any sociÂety, are ignored in all of the objecÂtions that Sandel raisÂes to LibÂerÂtarÂiÂanÂism.
The basic prinÂciÂple of all ethics is the non-aggresÂsion prinÂciÂple — that should be the driÂving prinÂciÂple for every culÂture and sociÂety — sadÂly, it is not.
1. The poor NEED the monÂey more. Sure they do. Noone argues that, but using this arguÂment, all of the peoÂple in a neighÂborÂhood should be redisÂtribÂutÂing their incomes until they all have the same. In effect, the NEED arguÂment is an arguÂment to be equalÂly poor until noone needs monÂey more than anyÂone else.
2. TaxÂaÂtion by conÂsent of the govÂerned is not coerced. The canÂniÂbalÂism disÂcusÂsion surÂroundÂing the eatÂing of the cabÂin boy should be enough to underÂstand that the majorÂiÂty rule, when it comes to self-ownÂerÂship, includÂing ecoÂnomÂic self-ownÂerÂship, is indeed coerÂcion.
3. The sucÂcessÂful owe a debt to sociÂety. Do they? Don’t the sucÂcessÂful peoÂple in our sociÂety already proÂvide a great benÂeÂfit to sociÂety by being great at what they do? Had Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and othÂers in the comÂputÂer indusÂtry not been driÂven to sucÂcess would we still be suing abaÂcusÂes today? Who owes who a debt? How about Jonas Salk, creÂator of the polio vacÂcine. He gave away the patent. Did sociÂety not owe him? Using this libÂerÂtarÂiÂan objecÂtion, everyÂone in sociÂety who was potenÂtialÂly saved from this horÂriÂble disÂease should have to give some of their income to Salk’s famÂiÂly.
4. Wealth depends partÂly on luck so it isn’t deserved. So what? Some were born with movie star looks and can gain subÂstanÂtialÂly by using them to their advanÂtage, but it doesÂn’t make them a betÂter perÂson. From the many biograÂphies on HolÂlyÂwood perÂsona it appears that qualÂiÂty relaÂtionÂships are a rarÂiÂty for celebriÂties. PerÂhaps those who use arguÂment would like to redisÂtribÂute looks so that celebriÂties don’t rely on the luck of being born pretÂty?