[Sen] starts out with the following example.Falkenstein's response , interpreted:
Take three kids and a flute. Anne says the flute should be given to her because she is the only one who knows how to play it. Bob says the flute should be handed to him as he is so poor he has no toys to play with. Carla says the flute is hers because she made it.
Sen argues that who gets the flute depends on your philosophy of justice. Bob, the poorest, will have the support of the economic egalitarian. The libertarian would opt for Carla. The utilitarian will argue for Anne because she will get the maximum pleasure, as she can actually play the instrument. Sen states there are no institutional arrangements that can help us resolve this dispute in a universally accepted just manner.
WRONG QUESTION!!! How do you get more flutes? Or how do you get the flute in the first place? Choose C.
Posts
1 comment:
That's one of the reasons I define 'ownership' as 'reasonable expectation of control.'
If Carla doesn't expect to control the flute, she won't make it - that's the pragmatic reason.
Second, there's the moral dimension. If only Carla has the expectation, the situation is stable. If anyone else develops it, then there's conflict, but also clear asymmetry. Most thieves don't steal out of sheer sadistic pleasure, so I have some sympathy for them, but it always comes back to the fact that if Carla releases her expectation, there's no flute to fight over, but if the thief does, the situation is stable.
Or, all theft and robbery depend on fraud. The thief intentionally tries to make Carla mistaken. (Is taxation theft, regardless of your definition framework? Well, would citizens still let themselves be taxed if they had the full facts? Hint: no.)
Since there are always threats, the natural ones even if we managed to cut down on the artificial, which means that security is property. Every time a technology allows more control, wealth is directly created. (I don't know one would go about recognizing this without ten or so solutions to IP+ immediately blooming in one's mind - statistically speaking, one of them almost has to work.)
Of course, in a stable reality, Carla sells the flute to Anne, getting resources so she can make more new things, and creating wealth in the form of music for everyone, including Bob.
You don't want the poor to suffer. I don't want the poor to suffer. That's everyone in the room, yeah? It's safe to assume we all do.
I'd personally sell flutes and use some of the profits to fund the first-ever phase I trials of poverty cures. Why isn't this the most obvious thing in the world? I seriously have trouble charitably interpreting anyone who thinks contrarily. I can't see how they get there in good faith. (I don't mean to imply there isn't a way. I just can't understand it, if so.)
Post a Comment