Suchergebnisse

Die hier vorgetragenen sozialphilosophischen Überlegungen zur sozialen Gerechtigkeit in einer Marktwirtschaft zeigen, daß die Verwirklichung dieser Gerechtigkeit, so wie sie gewöhnlich verstanden wird, zu lasten der Individuen gehen würde. Gerechtigkeit für die Individuen bedeutet Übereinstimmung mit internalisierten Regeln und Standards - im Endeffekt ist also das Individuum der Referenzpunkt. Eine Abkehr hiervon, theoretisch hier dargestellt am Modell einer "wirklich" gerechten Einkommensverteilung, ist denkbar, würde aber letztens von "sozialer Gerechtigkeit" zu einer "Verteilungsgerechtigkeit" führen. Für die freie Marktwirtschaft, insbesondere deren Produktivität, wäre dieses, ähnlich wie es auch Hayek sieht, tötlich. (NG)

The principles that we use to evaluate social and political institutions have affinities for one another whose precise nature is hard to establish. We sense that a person who holds a particular principle of freedom, for example, ought for consistency's sake to hold corresponding principles of authority, equality and so forth, but we are hard put to it to explain what 'corresponding' means here. My intention in the present paper is to examine what kind of connections may exist between the principle of democracy and various principles of social justice, and in doing so to throw some light on the evolution of liberal thinking from the classical liberalism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to the modified form of that doctrine that is prevalent in the West today. I shall try to show that changes in the liberal theory of social justice have been intimately connected to changing attitudes towards democracy as a form of government.

Modern ideas of justice stress the social qualities of equity and fairness; on the other hand, modern ideas of rational behavior stress individual, self-serving choices that are basically unconcerned with equity. In these forms, justice and rationality conflict in social situations as it appears they have done since Hobbes' analysis of human nature in the 17th century. Two more recent theories are reviewed here, both concerning this social dilemma: Santayana's Reason in Society, which finds solutions in social inequality (as meritocracy); and Rawls' Theory of Justice which finds solutions in social fairness and which tries to constrain social inequality. Rawls' theory is the more democratic, but at heart it is deliberately nonrational. It appears both theories are actually only partial solutions; Rawls in particular, includes unrealistic assumptions ruling out competition and envy in society. This analysis indicates that Santayana's approach has merit, pointing out that there are functional justifications for inequality. This analysis also advocates the priority of freedom over justice-as-equity, and further points out that under conditions we know as friendship, the original social dilemma may be avoided.

Überblick über das Steuersystem und seine Bedeutung für die Regierung als Mittel zur Entwicklungspolitik (Sdt)

Abstract. Léon Walras strongly believed that without an equitable distribution of wealth there could be no social justice. Though he defended the right of private property, he considered that land was a special case and that it belonged to all the community. His social reform involved the nationalization of land, the abolition of taxation on wages, the curbing of monopoly power, and the promotion of a strong cooperative movement. He insisted that the only way the working class could regain their freedom was by becoming property owners. The influence of Henry George on Walras' thinking is obvious. They both shared the same humanitarian ideals, and both believed in a capitalist system working side by side with the social reforms they advocated.