Thoughts, Julian?

Second, I’d like to echo Jeremy’s point that there’s unlikely to be any crippling difference between maximin and libertarian views when it comes to social output. Rawls has a nifty chart on this, both in “A Theory of Justice” and in “Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.” The latter one being slightly more interesting because if you put distributive justice in the context of political liberalism, I’m not sure that the Rawlsian can call the difference between Julian Sanchez and John Rawls anything but a political difference in which distribution and social output are only very slightly modified over time. Something tempered even more by the fact that a society of free and equal persons will select choices that alternate between the two positions and find homes in between them.

First, I don’t think 1-2-3 line up on one dimension. The difference between incidental and altruistic wealth seems to be a difference of results, whereas the difference between 3 and 1/2 is a difference in motivations or intentions behind the redistribution. It’s on this second dimension that I take the meat of the debate to be located.

Secondly, I think the point you add about Rawlsianism at the end is good, but I don’t think Rawls and Nozickians such as yourself differ in kind so much as in degree on the amount of redistribution. You’re both looking for the economy to benefit from redistribution, the question becomes how much redistribution will benefit the economy, and this question seems to me empirical in nature.

Finally, I don’t think the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental theories of redistribution is complete since the only instrumental theory you put on the table is an economic instrumentalist theory, i.e. a theory that states redistribution is good insofar as it helps the economy.

I espouse (and I take many progressives to agree) a more Sen-like instrumental theory of redistribution (and economics in general) wherein economic policy is set for the maximization of what Sen calls substantive freedoms.

Overall though, I’m incredibly glad you started a discussion involving serious analysis of this effusive concept of redistribution, and I really only aim to add to your framework.

I try to explain the GOP’s message and where it is inaccurate along the lines you discuss here.

You don’t have to be a hardcore libertarian to protest that education and schooling are distinct concepts.