Conatus: REVISED EDITION by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

C O N A T U S

this. As such, he saw no reason to extend the state (whose task, beyond the legitimate use of force, is presumably just about organisation) to more than just a very minimal level. In the transfer of goods between people it is argued that one party is better off and no-one is worse off and that therefore the balance of ‘good’ in the world is maximised. (This is called ‘Pareto efficiency’.) Maximising the number of Pareto-efficient transfers and minimising the non-Pareto ones will inevitably lead to a better society without relying on a coercion such as taxation, charity, or aid. These suggestions are really just extreme versions of the kind of society that already pertains in liberal democracies. That levelling I mention is a critical feature — a form of equality well beyond the tokenism that is ascribed to that word in today’s Western culture. Equality is, arguably, the constitutional value prior to justice and freedom. But we might go further and suggest that equity — fairness — is the truly foundational value that we are seeking above all else.

All of the systems we’ve looked at thus far are essentially focused on the individual, even when the state is included in the proposals. Whilst Rawls includes the idea that individuals might have a concern for the common good, his theory is really just individuals competing against an anonymous and all-powerful state — there is no real sense of co-operation. There is little mention of common projects by the state, or aims relating to the good of the nation, let alone health of the planet. Meanwhile, Robert Nozick’s Anarchy State and Utopia argues for only a very minimal state and that we should each be able

231