Well-being / justice

Misc, to-do

  • "The libertarian solution to personal suffering is to make some other person suffer even more, so your situation looks better by comparison. Which is how libertarians manages to get so many poor white people to vote against their own self-interest, because the poor black people will have it even worse."
  • at the heart of our society is a tension (and a compromise). we want people to have their needs met, but for the most part we expect that to happen by means of private action. (positive right to food etc. balanced with negative right of being left alone)
    • in contrast with central planning, in which needs are addressed by the government
    • and in contrast to ancapism, in which there are no positive rights, no gov, no corps, and in which there is no distinction between a person and a firm, who can refuse service to whom? what we've come up with (and which seems acceptable to me) is that:
    • government cannot discriminate
    • and neither can large or publicly-owned firms
    • but individuals can
    • the hard case is that of single proprietorships, each of which is simultaneously a person and a firm
    • example: Mother of crying baby blasts Marcy's Diner owner | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/22/mom-ejected-crying-toddler-defends-herself/
    • so, Sears can't refuse to sell me a hammer because I'm black, but hypothetical person Alice can refuse me entry into her home for any reason, including that she does not like black people.
    • so, a form of corporatism (as Bruenig calls it). the gov and firms are not individuals, they are corporate entities, and they have duties beyond those of individuals.
    • and this seemed to work for a long time, until the sharing economy came along, now everyone is a single proprietor of a firm that provides for people's needs.

Child pages


Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License