Some of you may recall that I wrote a series of blog posts criticizing Rawls’s idea of a property-owning democracy and the arguments offered for it. I received enough good feedback that I decided to turn the posts into a much more focused and measured journal article. I was fortunate enough that Philosophical Studies has decided to […]
As regular BHL readers know, I did a big series of blog posts on Rawlsian property-owning democracy last November. My criticisms were a response to some articles on property-owning democracy and a recent anthology of articles on the topic, Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond, edited by Martin O’Neill and Thad Williamson. Paul […]
[Editor’s Note: The following is a guest contribution by Felix Bungay, a student at the University of Cambridge reading an MPhil in Intellectual History and Political Thought.]
While many Bleeding Heart Libertarians are interested in Rawls, not many of them seem enamoured with his idea of a Property Owning Democracy (POD). I want […]
I’ve argued (ad nauseam) that property-owning democracy is bad because it is unworkable and unjust. I shall now argue that it is authoritarian as well. But before I begin, what do I mean by authoritarian?
The authoritarian, in Jerry Gaus’s terms, is one who
… demands that others must do as […]
In my last post, in my series on property-owning democracy (POD), I claimed that it is unjust because POD frustrates the realization of Rawls’s (unmodified) two principles of justice. But another more interesting method of showing that PODs are unjust is to show PODs violate a more plausible, modified version of Rawls’s two principles.
In my on-going series on Property-Owning Democracy (POD), I have explained the idea of a POD, examined the case for POD and argued that POD is unworkable. In this post, I shall argue that POD is unjust on Rawlsian grounds. I will make two arguments to this effect:
(1) The […]