On Rawls and Nozick

Ever thought about the seemingly opposed concepts of liberty and justice? So did John Rawls. His A Theory of Justice of 1972 is an unfluttering beacon of the former, though it has often been interpreted, in name and spirit, as one of the latter. Rawls' plea is this; assume you have no idea where you are born, or in what position, or condition; in short, behind a "veil of ignorance". Now design a tax system, a welfare state, pension plans (voluntary or mandatory?), daycare and old age-care, all with a mind for what may benefit your life, even if your contribution is neglectible. Rawls assumes, correctly I would say, that most finding themselves in this position would gladly pawn a degree of freedom - or, making it easier, a sum of their expected income - for greater security. The mechanisms of a money-consuming state must be designed with a mind for the less fortunate. But in the same suggestion, Rawls stoutly rejects the notion of a zero-sum game and the virtue of absolute egalitarianism, leave alone the said infringements of liberty such a state has suggested according to earlier philosophers and economists. A society designed (more or less stringently) with a mind for the less fortunate must include a high degree of difference - a gap, echoing Margaret Thatcher's famous last debate in the House of Commons ("You would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich"). I doubt Rawls had much admiration for Maggie, they are in absolute agreement regarding this spot, which philosophically makes a great gorge between Rawls and the average socialist philosopher.

Nozick published his s'posed masterpiece; Anarchy, State, Utopia in 1974, two years after Rawls'. Whether intended as a rebuttal or not, it is hard not to see them as dichotomizing liberal thought in two corners. Nozick's point is formalized in the very last words of the book; of creating a multifaceted society where all human association is voluntary, and where all but personal security is managed through consensual collectivism. All adults will be able and allowed to travel freely between these micro-societies, hence allowing a libertarian access to preferrable social services while retaining the right to boycott, renounce and desert each and every society one does not prefer. This to, paradoxically within the same objectives as Rawls, strive towards the goals of liberty and security, but from a different viewpoint. Core and heart is Nozick's notion of "patterning", i.e., the personal choices made by men and women which always strive against a larger, collective endeavour, which will either destroy society at large or become suppressed by it. If your preferences indulge you into the use of cannabis, under circumstances which does not interfere with other's decision not to, why shouldn't you be allow to follow this "pattern"? No utopia or goal is objective or better; the "common good" would rather consist of allowing as much multitude and diversity as the very existence of multitude and diversity allows. Nozick later moderated many of his strict "libertarian" viewpoints (a term which emerged during this era), but is still today considered a beacon of 20th century liberalism and radicalism; a Nestor of libertarian socialists, liberals and conservatives alike.

I strive to keep a foot on either volume.