It is only reasonable to
expect it to yield to the entrepreneur at least this value added now
and in the future.
In a "Theory of Justice" (published 1971, p. 302), John Rawls described
an ideal society thus:
"(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total
system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of
liberty for all. (2) Social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the
least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b)
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity. "
It all harks back to scarcity of resources - land, money, raw
materials, manpower, creative brains. Those who can afford to do so,
hoard resources to offset anxiety regarding future uncertainty. Others
wallow in paucity. The distribution of means is thus skewed.
"Distributive justice" deals with the just allocation of scarce
resources.
Yet, even the basic terminology is somewhat fuzzy. What constitutes a
resource? what is meant by allocation? Who should allocate resources -
Adam Smith's "invisible hand", the government, the consumer, or
business? Should it reflect differences in power, in intelligence, in
knowledge, or in heredity? Should resource allocation be subject to a
principle of entitlement? Is it reasonable to demand that it be just -
or merely efficient? Are justice and efficiency antonyms?
Justice is concerned with equal access to opportunities.
Pages:
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129