The person who gives money to the homeless man for a room does just that – he gives his own money, he sacrifices his own interest to further the interest of the recipient. But suppose that the homeless man secures a welfare transferfrom the state that is financed by a tax on designated members of the polity. In this setting, it becomes clear that the furtherance of the ethical norms of charity and compassion may be overextended because of the absence of any direct cost. Unless fiscal transfers are limited to those that would be unanimously approved by taxpayers, there is no analogy in collective action that is akin to that which is present in the private sector. As already noted, however, the implication here is not that no justification for explicit fiscal transfers can be made. Return to the earlier emphasis on the constitutional moment. At this moment, as imagined, persons meet as natural equals and agree on a fiscal structure that does incorporate transfers to those who are disadvantaged in the socioeconomic lottery. The point is that what may be called the ‘constitutional welfare state’(perhaps motivated by Rawlsian precepts) must be distinguished from the variously motivated set of fiscal transfers emergent from the workings of ordinary politics, which may,in part, be derived from compassionate concerns for persons classified as dependents.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 04:11:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015