Adumbration

One of the things I appreciated about this episode was the accounting of three perspectives with respect to social justice:  that from the standpoint of natural rights, the question of effectiveness, and that of how the institutions can be corrupted.  These are overlapping considerations when it comes to public policy, but the discussion managed to distinguish them adequately, all in the context of John Rawls and Robert Nozick.

Natural rights considerations have held sway with me since high school, at least.  But more to the point here is how transactions among us are decided, whether voluntary or compulsory being the key as it relates to justice.  My perspective is focused on process, rather than outcome, as it relates to obligations in society.

 Effectiveness is simply the question of whether interventionist policy actually achieves the ends of a better society.  The case of minimum wages would be one example where the result (higher unemployment, especially among young people) is opposite what people generally seem to want.

Institutional corruption results from how the people who stand to benefit from the details of interventionist policy are the very ones who are responsible for formulating those details.

David Schmidtz of the University of Arizona talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the work of John Rawls and Robert Nozick. The conversation covers the basic ideas of Rawls and Nozick on inequality and justice and the appropriate role of the state in taxation and property rights. [7 May 2012]