Justice or Liberty: Must We Choose?

Fresno Bee, August 30, 2008, p. C5.

The state budget impasse is an ideological battle focused on two conflicting values: justice and liberty. On the one side, Democrats think that justice requires the state to redistribute wealth by raising taxes on the rich. On the other side, Republicans want to defend liberty and protect private wealth from redistribution.

These divergent views have deep roots in alternative political philosophies. A brief review of the history of these ideas might help us imagine creative ways to reconcile these values.

Redistributive justice

Ideas about redistributing wealth have a long lineage. Robin Hood was a hero for stealing from the rich in order to give to the poor. For early Christians, "distribution was made to each as any had need" (Acts 4:35). Karl Marx modified this into the motto for communism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Communist redistributions required massive state interference, which proved not to work in practice.

But even in the American system, it has long been recognized that, as Jefferson put it, social inequalities can be lessened by "taxing the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

The most important defender of this idea is the American philosopher John Rawls. Unlike Marx, who wanted to eradicate inequality by eliminating private property, Rawls thought that inequalities of wealth and opportunity should be managed so that these inequalities benefit everyone. Rawls allows for rich people to become richer, so long as the rich person's increasing wealth also helps everyone else.

Our progressive tax system is set up according to this idea. As the rich earn more, some of their wealth is redistributed in a way that helps all of us. Defenders of redistribution claim that it is just to tax the rich because they directly benefit from social spending. Good schools, roads and social welfare systems create the infrastructure and labor force that help to generate wealth.

From this perspective, it would be unjust for someone to benefit from our economic system without paying back in proportion to that benefit.

Private property

Opposed to this is a view that staunchly defends private property against governmental interference. Philosophers such as John Locke wanted to protect "life, liberty and property" from intrusive government. The framers of the American Constitution put Locke's ideas into action by placing decisions about taxation in the hands of legislators, as a way of preventing excessive taxation. In the 20th century, the philosopher Robert Nozick argued that redistributive schemes always end up violating people's liberty.

On this view, the wealth I generate is mine alone, a product of my labor. I have the right to decide what to do with my wealth. I can choose to donate it to help the less fortunate, if I wish. But that choice should be left up to me. It should not be forced upon me by the government.

Defenders of liberty and property will also argue that a system that allows people to make more money for themselves will be more productive. John F. Kennedy put it this way: "A rising tide floats all boats." The idea is that creative individuals will work harder to make more money, if they are allowed to keep the riches they produce. And this overall productivity will eventually "trickle down" and help those at the bottom by producing cheaper commodities and more jobs.

Hope for a budget?

The most recent Democratic budget proposal would have increased taxation for two tax brackets: those earning more than $321,000 and more than $642,000. This makes sense from a redistributive perspective, which holds that the wealthy -- who can certainly afford to pay more -- have an obligation to pay back into the system. The Democratic proposal failed, because Republicans want to protect liberty and stimulate productivity by cutting governmental expenditures and keeping taxes low.

Any solution to the budget impasse is going to have to find a way to resolve the conflict between liberty and justice. The history of political philosophy reminds us that these values are always in tension. Wars and revolutions have been fought in defense of these values.

One hopes that our legislators know some of this history and that they are thinking creatively about how best to reconcile these opposed values. And we all hope that they find this solution as soon as possible.

Andrew Fiala, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at California State University, Fresno, and the author of "The Just War Myth."