D. How Sunstein’s view relates to Posner • Sunstein 's view, in regards to Posner, would be in a general disagreement to the use of wealth maximization to cover all law, to the extent that not using the theory would go against what courts promote. To Posner, judges, in their application of rules and procedures to particular cases, ought to promote wealth maximization. The promotion of wealth maximization requires an ought. This means that to pursue wealth maximization is something that should be done and if not done it would be wrong. • However, to Sunstein, this view is exactly what he is argues against; wherein a high-level theory, a general theory of all law, has a domain over a large portion of law. So large, in fact, that the high-level theory is where all principles and outcomes should come from as absolutes. However, Posner must allow indeterminacy in particular cases; an ambiguity that is filled with low-level principles, that do not directly derive from the theory of wealth maximization. If this can be true, for particular cases, then it can be incompletely theorized and acceptable to Sunstein. But Posner, would hold that his economic approach, that uses wealth maximization, is necessary. An …show more content…
This is because Sunstein uses his theory to suggest that all overarching theories of law require something more. That something more are low-level principles. Low-level principles do exactly what high-level theories do, except the overarching structure. Posner suggests the development and application of rules and procedures to particular cases ought to need wealth maximization; therefore, anything that does not support wealth maximization would cause social waste under the law. But Sunstein states that low-level principles do not put social welfare at risk. So this alludes that Posner 's account of wealth maximization cannot, at the moment, accept Sunstein and his low-level
The R vs Papajohn case took place in Vancouver of 1979. It was one of the first controversial sexual assault cases because of the issue of false consent. Geroge Papajohn was accused of sexual assault and found guilty. George Papajohn put his house up for sale and acquired the help of a real-estate agent, Constance (real name is protected under rape shield act). Because of the differing stories gave to the court, Papajohns intentions remain unclear. Did George Papajohn commit sexual assault or was it an honest mistake of false consent?
...onstitute injustice. Nosick favors a state in which the dominant protection agency as the only form of "government" serves to protect those who chose to freely participate in the service. The individual is free to go about his life so long as he does not violate an individual or worsen the conditions of the land for others. Having the right to ownership does not mean the right to harm, but rather the right to exclude. Just as I would not steal property from another individual (without fear of the protection agency), how is it just for anyone, including the government, to take earnings from individuals in the form of distribution or taxation? If just acquisition arises from the just history (any form you see fit), than wealth and free spending are simply functions within society with discretion falling under the responsibility of the buyer and seller of the goods.
...themselves. By adding further conditions or exceptions we could address specific objections and create more narrowly defined obligations. Further modifications of PP’ would not generally eliminate obligations, but it would allow choices to be made. In particular, for the affluent, doing nothing remains off limits so they would still be required to do what they can to alleviate suffering in places where they are in agreement that help is warranted. This derivation from the original argument plausibly supports the basic argument made by Singer that we ought to do everything in our power to help those in need so long as we need not sacrifice anything significant.
Nozick introduces his theory by calling a “minimal state” (Nozick 149) the only justifiable state that does not infringe on the rights of the people living in this state. Nozick as a libertarian, believes in the freedom of the individual over all else., Nozick says, “There is no one natural dimension or weighted sum or combination of a small number of natural dimensions that yields the distributions generated in accordance with the principle of entitlement”(Nozick 157). The patterns, upon which certain sections argue for the distribution of wealth, such as poverty etc., do not impress Nozick at all. Continuing the belief of individual freedom over all else, Nozick then presents his entitlement theory, which advocates that all of one’s possessions sho...
law as a creation of the rich, who, because of their wealth, own and control most of the property
... own interest versus the interest as a whole will lead to the natural creation of the societies we live in today. It would be futile to deny someone their right to pursue wealth once it becomes the desire of the whole to do the same. These ideas eventually lead to natural competition that fuel global economies.
It is also believed that wealth should be non-existent. This is only possible if cl...
e) In the context of history, what the Framers wanted is important question, but it’s bearing on the functionality of the U.S. government and economic relations today is of no significant importance. The manner in which the government conduct’s its socio-economic policy is far removed for the originally system devised. While we should always continue to examine what the Founders wanted, it does not really matter for day to day practical reasons. Throughout the Nation’s history the economic element of The Constitution has been changed repeatedly to fit the ideologies of those in power or to cure some ill of the national economy. Also, the system constructed by the Founders was to preserve wealth for those already wealthy, but the systems of power have balanced out, and to a degree more people are able to acquire wealth and keep it. Thus, what the Founders wanted, while historically important, does not matter to the drastic change in the operation of government involvement in the
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.
...Although this theory is very rational and scholarly it again asks for a very ideal situation of fairness where the chances of both disputants coming to these terms seems unattainable. Also, it is quite obvious that what one sees as fair, another may not. All the same, the theory by itself provides great principles for negotiation that if followed honestly by both parties would most likely lead to a satisfactory agreement.
...posit is made with the whole, with no individual. The contract is equal, for each gives all. No one reserves any rights by which he can claim to judge of his own conduct” (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 568).
Nozick’s arguments in this claim are fair more convincing, as it allows individuals the freedom to utilize their natural endowments to their own benefit without complicating them with a necessity to aid the worse off in society. Beyond Rawl’s principle of redistribution towards the least well off, there is no principle beyond addressing the situation of burdened individuals.
...e achieved when the Liberty and Difference Principle are enacted with the veil of ignorance. On the contrary, Nozick argues that Rawls’s theory is exactly the sort of patterned principle that infringes upon individual liberty. As an alternative, Nozick provides his unpatterned principle as the ideal distribution of goods in a society. To me, Rawls’s argues his theory in a manner where his principles of justice are not only difficult to achieve, but ultimately are exceedingly deficient in providing general utility. The veil of ignorance has proved to be almost impossible as well as unethical. The Difference Principle in itself is unable to justly distribute property since it clearly violates an individual’s liberty. Since Rawls’s method of distributive justice is rendered unreasonable and inefficient, it leaves us with a clear answer derived from two disjunctions.
Rashid, S., 2007. The "Law" of One Price: Implausible, yet Consequential. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 10(1), pp. 79-89.
The theories of David Ricardo, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and later, Karl Marx, in the 18th and 19th century built on these views of wealth that we now call classical economics and Marxist economics. Michel Foucault commented that the concept of Man as an aggregate did not exist before the 18th century. The shift from the analysis of an individual's wealth to the concept of an aggregation of all men is implied in the concepts of political economy and then economics. This transition took place as a result of a cultural bias inherent in the Enlightenment. Wealth was seen as an objective fact of living as a human being in a society. Some people believe wealth is a zero-sum game, where there is a limited amount of wealth and some must lose in order for others to gain. As a result they are concerned primarily with issues of wealth distribution rather than wealth creation. Others believe that wealth can be readily created. They feel that wealth is not a fixed amount to be distributed. To most of these people, organizing a society so as to optimize the growth of wealth is more important than distribution issues. Many of these people believe in some version of the trickle-down theory in which newly created wealth "trickles down" to all strata of society, thereby making the question of distribution mute.