Libertarian Views on Welfare and Rawls's Theory of Justice

Introduction

The libertarian view on welfare and other similar government policies is that they should be ended. Moving to a libertarian model of government could have drastic effects on the current population and create more problems than it would solve. Alleviating the accountability of government under the guise of freedom is not a responsible approach for a government that exists for the people.

Essentially, libertarians believe personal liberty should be the overriding concern of society and that government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible. They contend that government should significantly reduce its size, lower taxes, and leave citizens alone. Some positions the party supports include the legalization of drugs, the abolishment of income taxes, and the ending of all welfare programs (Ruwart).

The purpose of the welfare system is to ensure that no one falls through the cracks into total destitution. Libertarians believe that not-for-profit organizations are more effective than government at providing a safety net for those in need. They maintain that a revitalization of private charities will fill the void left by dismantling the welfare system currently in place. They also hold that nonprofits already perform many of the functions we have come to think of as government services, but do so far more effectively (James).

A Just Society: Rawls's Egalitarian Theory

In An Egalitarian Theory of Justice, American philosopher John Rawls discusses the elements necessary for a society to be just for all. He begins with the supposition that in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are not based on social circumstances, financial position, or authority.

Rawls defines society as an association of individuals who recognize certain rules of conduct and behave accordingly in order to advance the good of all participants. This arrangement harbors an inherent conflict. On one hand, social cooperation makes it possible for individuals to live a better life than if they were to rely solely on their own efforts. On the other hand, because individuals are not indifferent as to how these greater benefits are distributed, they will naturally pursue a larger share. Rawls claims that this phenomenon requires a set of social principles to ensure justice, so that the advantaged do not unfairly gain by their position. He goes on to say that these principles must be chosen "behind a veil of ignorance" so that "no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances" (Rawls). In other words, for justice to be just, it must be blind.

Rawls's Principles of Distributive Justice

Rawls asserts there are two principles of justice. First, all must have equal rights to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Second, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and that social positions and offices be open to all. He defines basic liberties as political liberty, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom to hold property, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by law (Rawls). The second principle may be achieved through equity of opportunity. Together, these principles make up what he calls distributive justice.

Rawls's second principle speaks to society's obligation to be just in the distribution of opportunity and to protect the less fortunate from the greed of the privileged. Rawls contends that social and economic inequalities are normatively a matter of happenstance. He believes that such inequalities should be arranged so that they are both of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged and that offices and positions of authority be open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Piccard).

Rawls further contends that for distributive justice to work, social and economic processes must exist within suitable political and economic institutions. He calls for the establishment of four background institutions, or branches, in government to ensure equity of justice. The allocation branch ensures that the pricing system is competitive and that no individual or corporation forms unreasonable market power. The stabilization branch endeavors to bring about reasonably full employment opportunities for those who want to work. The transfer branch guarantees a certain level of well-being. Finally, the distribution branch strives to preserve an approximate justice in distributive shares by means of taxation and necessary adjustments in the rights of property (Rawls).

Conclusion

If we truly wish to have a just society, it is imperative that society's moral obligation to be just in the distribution of opportunity be fulfilled. The libertarian political ideology fails to recognize any obligation society might have to its less fortunate members. Alleviating the accountability of government under the guise of freedom is not a responsible method of governance for a society committed to justice for all.

Works Cited

James, Louis. "Libertarian Party on Welfare & Poverty." On the Issues. Source LP News. 1 April 1999. 13 February 2011. <

Loo, Dennis. "Libertarianism and Poverty." The Ethical Spectacle. April 2003. 13 February 2011. <

Piccard, Dick. "A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls." Ohio.edu. 4 April 2005. 13 February 2011. <

Rawls, John. "An Egalitarian Theory of Justice." A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Ruwart, Mary. "How Would Libertarians Help the Homeless?" Libertarianism. 20 September 2010. 13 February 2011. <http://www.libertarianism.com/content/short_answers?id=libertarianism-101&post_id=145>