An Egalitarian Law of PeoplesAn Egalitarian Law of PeoplesThomas PoggeThomas Pogge

Philosophy & Public Affairs 2005Philosophy & Public Affairs 2005

Leonardo FloresLeonardo Flores PUAF 699IPUAF 699I

Rawls’s Conception of Domestic JusticeRawls’s Conception of Domestic Justice

1)1) Fair value of political libertiesFair value of political liberties

2)2) Fair equality of opportunityFair equality of opportunity

3)3) Difference principleDifference principle

Current World OrderCurrent World Order

1)1) It fails to give members of different peoples roughly It fails to give members of different peoples roughly equal chances to influence the transnational political equal chances to influence the transnational political decisions that shape their lives.decisions that shape their lives.

2)2) It fails to give equally talented and motivated It fails to give equally talented and motivated persons roughly equal chances to obtain a good persons roughly equal chances to obtain a good education and professional position irrespective of education and professional position irrespective of the society into which they were born.the society into which they were born.

3)3) It also generates international social and economic It also generates international social and economic inequalities that are not to the maximum benefit of inequalities that are not to the maximum benefit of the world’s worst-off persons.the world’s worst-off persons.

p.196p.196

Pogge’s ArgumentPogge’s Argument

Rawls does not think that any of the Rawls does not think that any of the three analogous criticisms is valid, but three analogous criticisms is valid, but he only concentrates on the third.he only concentrates on the third.

Pogge believes all three are valid, but Pogge believes all three are valid, but only presses him on the following: A only presses him on the following: A plausible conception of global justice plausible conception of global justice must be sensitive to international social must be sensitive to international social and economic inequalities.and economic inequalities.

Pogge’s ArgumentPogge’s Argument

He accepts, for the sake of argument, He accepts, for the sake of argument, the following:the following:

1) That global justice is addressed in a 1) That global justice is addressed in a second session of the original position.second session of the original position.2) That the world’s population neatly 2) That the world’s population neatly divides into peoples cleanly separated by divides into peoples cleanly separated by national borders.national borders.

He also waives any support his position He also waives any support his position could draw from the role past crimes could draw from the role past crimes have played in settling current borders.have played in settling current borders.

Global Resources TaxGlobal Resources Tax

-- Though each people own and control all Though each people own and control all resources within their territory, they must resources within their territory, they must pay a tax on resources they choose to pay a tax on resources they choose to extract. extract.

- Tax should be extended to reusable Tax should be extended to reusable resources including land use, as well as resources including land use, as well as taxing the discharge of pollutants into the taxing the discharge of pollutants into the air and water.air and water.

- It should be thought of as an amendment It should be thought of as an amendment to the Law of Peoples.to the Law of Peoples.

Global Resources TaxGlobal Resources Tax

-- It’s basically a tax on consumption.It’s basically a tax on consumption.

-- The tax falls on goods and services in The tax falls on goods and services in proportion to how much value it proportion to how much value it takes from the planet.takes from the planet.

-- In this way it serves as a modern In this way it serves as a modern Lockean proviso: “One may use Lockean proviso: “One may use unlimited amounts, but one most unlimited amounts, but one most share some of the economic benefit.share some of the economic benefit.

Global Resources TaxGlobal Resources Tax

Money from the GRT should go to the Money from the GRT should go to the poor to ensure that they have access poor to ensure that they have access to “education, health care, means of to “education, health care, means of production (land) and/or jobs . . . to production (land) and/or jobs . . . to meet their own basic needs with meet their own basic needs with dignity and to represent their right dignity and to represent their right and interests effectively against the and interests effectively against the rest of humankind.”rest of humankind.”

Global Resources TaxGlobal Resources Tax

-- States are responsible for paying the States are responsible for paying the GRT and are free to raise the funds in GRT and are free to raise the funds in any way they like.any way they like.

-- Ideally, GRT payments should go Ideally, GRT payments should go directly to the government of the directly to the government of the poorest societies.poorest societies.

Global Resources TaxGlobal Resources Tax

-- Governments are free to spend the Governments are free to spend the GRT as they wish, but if the poor GRT as they wish, but if the poor aren’t helped in recipient countries aren’t helped in recipient countries then GRT funds may be cut off. then GRT funds may be cut off.

-- In such a case, the GRT funds could In such a case, the GRT funds could be given to a development agency to be given to a development agency to fund programs in the country, or no fund programs in the country, or no money would go there.money would go there.

Global Resources TaxGlobal Resources Tax

-- Pogge envisions a facilitating Pogge envisions a facilitating organization which sets the rules so organization which sets the rules so that the tax has the best possible that the tax has the best possible impact on the world’s poorest people impact on the world’s poorest people in the long run.in the long run.

- Pogge thinks that a 1% GRT would be Pogge thinks that a 1% GRT would be both feasible a morally attractive.both feasible a morally attractive.

Global Resources Tax – The Problem of Global Resources Tax – The Problem of StabilityStability

- Small scale defections: The response Small scale defections: The response should be sanctions (import/export duties) should be sanctions (import/export duties) impose by every other country. This impose by every other country. This would keep things decentralized so as not would keep things decentralized so as not to require a world government.to require a world government.

- Large scale defections: Pogge does not Large scale defections: Pogge does not give a definitive answer, but think the GRT give a definitive answer, but think the GRT is in the best interest of the more affluent is in the best interest of the more affluent societies. Argues for an appeal to values societies. Argues for an appeal to values in “Western moral thought”, touts the in “Western moral thought”, touts the environmental benefits, and thinks the environmental benefits, and thinks the GRT can be used as a bargaining chip GRT can be used as a bargaining chip against dangerous technologies.against dangerous technologies.

Rawls’s Position on International Distributive Rawls’s Position on International Distributive JusticeJustice

- Rawls claims that delegates from liberal Rawls claims that delegates from liberal societies will adopt his law of peoples societies will adopt his law of peoples because they have one fundamental because they have one fundamental interest: that its society’s domestic interest: that its society’s domestic institutions satisfy its conception of justice.institutions satisfy its conception of justice.

- Pogge denies that they only have one Pogge denies that they only have one interest and goes on to say that even if interest and goes on to say that even if they only had one interest, they would they only had one interest, they would favor the GRT over the law of peoples.favor the GRT over the law of peoples.

Against Rawls’s StipulationAgainst Rawls’s Stipulation

- It is hard to believe that delegates It is hard to believe that delegates would not have an interest in well-would not have an interest in well-being. After all, the whole point of being. After all, the whole point of domestic justice is the well-being of domestic justice is the well-being of individuals.individuals.

- If there is any interest in well-being, If there is any interest in well-being, the GRT would be favored.the GRT would be favored.

Against Rawls’s ReasoningAgainst Rawls’s Reasoning

- Even if delegates had only the one Even if delegates had only the one interest, they would, at most, be interest, they would, at most, be indifferent between GRT and Rawls.indifferent between GRT and Rawls.

- However, given that international However, given that international inequality may have a negative inequality may have a negative impact on domestic justice in a poor impact on domestic justice in a poor society, then delegates have a society, then delegates have a reason to favor the GRT.reason to favor the GRT.