John Rawls amended for dynamics

John Rawls was a moral philosopher who developed a new idea regarding redistributive politics. He said that the level of redistribution of means in a society should be based on what people would agree on before they know their own abilities and situation. He thus postulates an original position, where people must decide the level of redistribution of a society under a veil of ignorance of their own life, skills etc.

Rawls argued that people in this hypothetical situation would choose to minimize the risk of being destitute and redistributive forces in society would be based on a rule of maximin, meaning that those whoever becomes worst off would be helped considerably by the state. Redistributive politics would be tempered by the wish to maximize liberty and the possibility of self-improvement.

Surprisingly, Rawls did not wish for his theory to apply to redistribution between countries. In his work The Law of Peoples, he argues that international development aid should be at a fairly low level, much lower than implied by the original position, because aid might otherwise enrich corrupt and oppressive regimes. I suspect that Rawls’ background, growing up and living in the USA, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, has affected his moral philosophy quite a bit so he was unable to see the contradiction between his arguments for strongly redistributive policies nationally and in his stance on international redistribution of means. I believe that the original position should also include a geographic aspect. People should not know which country they will be born into, only the chances of growing up in free or oppressed, wealthy or poor countries. This would lead to quite strong policies of international aid and international interventionism.

Another criticism of Rawls comes from proponents of laissez-faire, who argue that economic freedom will increase prosperity in the long run for everyone, thus limiting the usefulness of Rawls’ theory. However, I would argue that the dynamics of economic growth and societal development can be incorporated into the Rawlsian original position in a very revealing and useful way. Thus, the original position should have a veil of ignorance not just about individual aptitudes, family, wealth and geographic location but also about when in the course of human history people will be born. Assuming that societies that have strong incentives for work also tend to have high rates of economic growth, people will see that their chances of leading a rich and fulfilling life are greater if redistributive politics are decreased to improve growth.

Also regarding specific economic policies, the static model of Rawls would imply particularly high taxes on inheritances. If the Rawlsian original position is amended to also include not knowing which time period people are born, there is a stronger logic in for example allowing people to inherit larger amounts of money with few taxes as this tends to increase growth, people typically wanting to leave some means to their surviving kin. This increased growth is something desirable as it improves the lot of everyone except a few members of the first generation who do not receive as much redistributed wealth as they otherwise would have in the static Rawlsian original position.

The original position that also includes a veil of ignorance about time assumes that all societies will not come to some abrupt end. To account for the uncertainty that humankind even has a future, it might be necessary to adjust the original position so that future wealth is discounted according to how far in the future the wealth is created.