This paper is about the first two chapters of Arthur Okun's book Equality and Efficiency. The questions relate to Okun's premise that there is an inherent conflict between inalienable rights and dollars. He argues that dollars transgress on rights, and that this is part of the tradeoff that must be made in a capitalist democracy.
Equality Efficiency
Arthur Okun argues that a clear line must be drawn between dollars and rights. At the heart of his argument is that there is an inherent conflict between the two in a capitalist democracy, and politicians can only resolve this conflict through "The Big Tradeoff." With respect to rights, Okun notes that they are fundamentally different from dollars in that they are inalienable and equally distributed, and that as such they cannot be bought and sold, nor distributed in any other manner. Rights, therefore, must be held outside the market, otherwise they will have a price and lose their inalienability. Dollars are different because they are not inalienable, and they can be traded or used as incentive. He thus argues that they two are fundamentally distinct from one another, and must be held separate as a result. There can be no blending of the two, or rights will no longer have the same meaning in society.
Okun believes that dollars often transgress on rights. He views the conflict between the two arising from a system where everybody has the same rights, but where economic outcomes are dramatically different. He sees uneven economic outcomes as representing "uneasy compromises rather than fundamental inconsistencies." This makes the study of economic outcomes under equal rights to be an economic one, since it very specifically involves making tradeoffs where the conflict exists. It is here that Okun sees dollars as transgressing over rights. One example that he cites is within the legal system where the wealthy receive better legal service than the poor because they can afford better lawyers. Theoretically, everybody has the same rights under the law, but those with the money can exert greater influence over the implementation of the law, and that gives them "more" rights than those without money. Thus, dollars transgress upon rights. Okun sees the legal system as being one of the most important areas where the rights afforded to all Americans by law are expressed differently to different socioeconomic classes. A similar situation would be the funding of public schools through property taxes, something that inherently means wealthier areas will have better-funded schools than areas with a low property tax base.
Okun's view that dollars sometimes infringe on rights is accurate, and there are many more examples that can be cited. The underlying principle is that when a public good that is supposedly a right of all Americans is subject to market forces -- be they property values, legal fees or something else -- then dollars are put in a position to infringe on the rights of those who do not have the same amount of dollars. His assertion that "a clear line must be drawn between dollars and rights" is more of a personal opinion that he holds. Each democratic society must choose for itself what tradeoffs are appropriate. This, in essence, is why the U.S. functions one way and other democracies like Canada or Germany function another way. Their citizens have chosen a different set of tradeoffs than Americans have.
Okun's view is clearly on the side that rights are superior to dollars, and that is a reasonable view for anyone to hold. However, it is just a personal viewpoint, one that nobody is obligated to agree with. He admits that a tradeoff must always exist because the conflict is inherent, and he places rights ahead of dollars in terms of prioritization. Thus, he naturally feels that a system where sometimes dollars are placed ahead of rights is faulty.
The reason why such a system can even exist is because some rights are not truly inalienable. That may be the wording of the Constitution, and it may be in theory what is expected of the legal system or the education system, but these "rights" are not a birthright. Rather, they must be granted by the government. Rights like life and liberty are a lot closer to being inalienable, but even those can be removed by government decree (the death penalty and incarceration, for example). Just as the government that seeks to deliver this rights is effectively admitting that for the purposes of maintaining order the inalienability of those rights must be waived for certain individuals, the purported inalienability of rights like equality before the law are subject to waiver as well. In the case of defense lawyers, the tradeoff made by government -- the American people -- derives from economic pragmatism.
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.