The images of indignation are everywhere — street protests in Greece, Italy, Spain and, of course, our own Occupy Wall Street movement. The underlying rationale for the indignation seems to be some amorphous concept of social justice and demands for redistributive policies by a redistributionist state. President Obama expressed similar sentiments in his State of the Union address.
Since principles of distributive justice guide the allocation of the benefits and burdens of economic activity, the subject is worth exploring beyond political platitudes and sound bites. A defining concept, and philosophically necessary premise, of redistributive justice is that, as individuals we did nothing to deserve our inborn talents. Thus, we are not morally entitled to all the benefits we could possibly receive from employing our talents.
The protesters' emblematic term "redistributive justice" implies that some force (God, government, the market system, etc.) used erroneous criteria to distribute goods, and the erroneous distribution must now be redistributed using different criteria.
But why? Our natural endowment of talents breaks no law and does not violate anyone's rights. Moreover, an accepted concept of justice holds that a distribution is just if that distribution came about by legitimate means.
Clearly, if wealth is acquired using unjust means, the individual or entity is not entitled to those holdings and a rectification is called for. But if wealth is acquired justly, what exactly is the principle under which justly acquired holdings are to be seized?
- Hits: 2641
Ponencia de Marcos Villasmil en la Conferencia titulada 
Su falso estado de tranquilidad se transfiguró rápidamente. No pudo soportar el cuestionamiento de su política de estado. No le importó en lo más mínimo que la resolución hubiera sido apoyada por veinte Jefes de Estado o de Gobierno. Pensó que encolerizarse y proferir improperios contra el presidente de una nación frenaría la resolución de condena al terrorismo del grupo ETA.