Conatus: THIRD EDITION by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

C O N A T U S

‘Property rights’ theories of justice, in contrast to what we’ve considered so far, argue that any redistribution of wealth is essentially theft. If someone has obtained something, either by acquisition (through work or money, for instance) or by transfer (a gift or an inheritance) then they deserve to keep this. In the transfer of goods between people it is argued that if one party is better off and no-one is worse off then the balance of ‘good’ in the world is maximised. Maximising the number of beneficial transfers and minimising the harmful ones will inevitably lead to a better society without relying on a ‘coercion’ such as taxation, charity, or aid. Sometimes it’s argued that this is one of the underlying principles of capitalism. Critics might however suggest that there is no such thing as a harmless transfer or exchange between people in and of itself — there are always wider concerns and other considerations that must be brought to bear.

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 the idea that individuals might have a concern for the common good could be included in ideas about a fair society, we are really just individuals competing against an anonymous and all-powerful state — there is no real sense of co-operation. There is often little mention of common projects by the state, or aims relating to the good of the nation, let alone health of the planet. Discussions on politics usually centre around who will be better off and who will be worse off, at the level of individuals and families.

193