Father and son. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

G’day. Tonight Webdiary’s first work experience student, Lachlan Brown, discusses the philosophical underpinnings of Howard’s way by comparing the work of John Rawls and Robert Nozick.

Lachlan is a fourth year media and communications student at Sydney University. He plays the piano and french horn and teaches music to help pay his way through uni. His first piece for Webdiary, Destroying Menzies’ noble revolution, contrasted Robert Menzies’ vision for higher education with that of John Howard. In essence, Menzies believed higher education was a public good – a public asset – while Howard and Costello believe it is a private privilege.

For more on the changing role of government in a world grimly capitulating to corporate interests and values, see Muddying the waters between guardians and traders, Sacrificing humanity on the altar of cheap ideologyand A fair go education system: the advantages for all of us.

***

Rawls-v-Nozick: liberty for all, or just the rich?

by Lachlan Brown

In our current society, the study of philosophy tends to be written off quite easily. Philosophy doesn’t provide tangible results like engineering or science. It doesn’t build bridges or cure diseases. It doesn’t feed us or clothe us. It doesn’t even make us laugh.

Philosophers are rarely cited in the Australian media or asked to comment on specific issues. This seems to fuel the perception that philosophers are stuck in ivory towers (or at least behind the crumbling walls of sandstone universities), tucked away from the real world and hidden in a realm of abstract thinking.

However not all philosophy is scorned or ignored. Recently, the Wachowski brothers’ Matrix films popularised some of philosophy’s traditional questions about knowledge by judiciously combining them with Keanu Reeves, digital fight scenes and extended car chases. In these films the big questions are put back on the agenda again. Can we trust our senses? Is our entire life just an illusion? Is the real world run by evil machines who constantly deceive us (or does the Australian public service have another function)?

However whilst questions of knowledge are once again popular, I would like to argue that the philosophies of government and politics are central to political debate. How should governments work? What is their purpose? These questions underpin democracy itself and are of vast importance to society as a whole.

At first glance this debate may look quite boring, so Webdiary readers who would like to submit ideas for a Matrix-style film, outlining the contours of political philosophy are welcome to respond (let’s face it, most philosophy does require some sexing-up). Until then however, here are some musings of my own. These are centred around two American philosophers who have dominated the landscape of political philosophy over the last 30 years.

Most people who have studied policy, distributive justice or government know about an American philosopher called John Rawls. Born in 1921 and educated at Princeton, he published his seminal work in 1971, entitled A Theory of Justice.

This work was groundbreaking in many ways. Not only did it help to wrench philosophy away from its self indulgent preoccupation with language, but it also showed how philosophy could have a real impact on the way society was arranged. The purpose of Rawls work was to create a system of justice from first principles, creating a philosophical basis for a just society.

Rawls accomplished this by grounding his theory in a type of social contract which began with a veil of ignorance. He argued that to work out the basic principles of a society, each of us should pretend that we know nothing about our own social class, current wealth or talents. From this ignorance we are to produce the basic principles about how our society should be run.

Rawls argued that not knowing our position in society would lead to us to be concerned for everyone equally. We would therefore be particularly concerned for those who are least fortunate in society, because it would be possible (under our veil of ignorance) that we could be the worst off along with them!

As a result, Rawls came up with two principles that he thought most people would agree with in this hypothetical. Firstly, the Liberty Principle stated that each person has a right to the greatest equal liberty possible. Secondly the Difference Principle stated that social and economic differences in society could only be justified if they benefited the worst off. Whenever you changed society you had to make sure that things would improve for the people on the bottom of the heap. So the rich could get richer only if the poor were not left behind.

Rawls’ theory was a form of liberalism which provided the foundation for many types of government. Chief among these was the welfare state, in which wealth was redistributed so that the least fortunate would be looked after. Philosophy had provided something a tad more useful than language games or debates about whether the chair really exists. Rawls’ theory of justice began to underpin policy and politics.

That’s where our second philosophical friend arrived on the scene. Robert Nozick was a young philosophy professor in the early 1970s who published a critical reply to Rawls theory. In his first book, Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) he argued brilliantly that Rawls principles of Liberty and Difference actually contradicted each other.

Nozick claimed that any government which forcibly taxed rich people and redistributed their wealth to help poor people was violating the liberty of the rich. Governments, he argued, had no right to encroach on the rights of individuals by taking their money and giving it to others. Governments shouldn’t act like Robin hood, robbing the rich to give to the poor.

This was especially the case if people’s wealth had arisen through talent or hard work. Nozick held strongly to the rights of the individual, and advocated a minimal state which maintained law and order but did nothing to redistribute wealth.

Philosophical battles might not have the power hitting of World Title bouts or the even catty name calling of celebrity feuds, but the debate between Rawls and Nozick is still sending aftershocks through most of the the western world.

These views have become the basis for opposing political parties. In the US, the Democrats traditionally advocate wealth redistribution whilst the Republicans push for tax cuts and less government interference.

In some places however, it seems as though Nozick’s ideas are garnering more and more support. Many Americans, for example, argue that poverty and unemployment are deserved and that success and fortune are gained through hard work and superior talent (manifested in the American Dream).

Australia has now followed the US down this path, with both sides of politics moving further and further away from Rawls’ welfare state toward Nozick’s extreme individualism. This philosophical shift has been subtle but inexorable, like the movement of tectonic plates under the earths surface. As a result many recent policies have been sold using the user-pays mantra that Nozick championed – why should people be forced to pay taxes for things that benefit others?

As a result we get HECs and full fees for uni students. We are strongly encouraged to pay private insurers for health care whilst the government attempts to dismantle Medicare. We make payments to fund our own retirement. We may asked to pay more for the public transport we use. The ABC is relentlessly attacked as a tax-payer funded institution which only benefits a minority.

Of course, this freedom from redistribution can easily result in a profoundly selfish society where individuals are encouraged to consume rather than to care. Furthermore traditional rights, like health care and education, are gradually transformed into commodities which individuals must pay for.

What’s more, there are good reasons to oppose Nozick’s philosophy. If you don’t redistribute wealth then you get vast economic differences between rich and poor. Interestingly, these differences themselves will lead to a denial of liberty. The poor don’t have the freedom to live where they want. They can’t afford legal representation. Children from poor families are unable to pay for a superior education, which further entrenches the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Quite simply, it is clear that liberty is inextricably linked to economic position. As Nozick affirms liberty for the rich, he appears to deny it to the poor.

My hunch is that we won’t run with Nozick forever. In the near future an ageing group of baby boomers will need looking after. And due to the volatile nature of superannuation schemes wealth redistribution will be put back on the agenda again. The big questions will arise once more. Who will pay for aged care? Who should pay for aged care?

Of course, the next generation will be asked to foot the bill. Ironically, this is the very generation which has been brought up on the user-pays principle. And so the men and women who have spent their lives paying their own way will have to cough up once more for the baby-boomers. For their part, the baby-boomers will get an easier retirement which (like their university fees, health and public transport) someone else has paid for.