The idea of an united will is fundamental to Kant's argument for redistribution and equal opportunity, a point that Ripstein emphasizes throughout Chapter 9. Legitimate acts of the state are limited to those that represent the general will of the people; as Ripstein explains, "any powers a state has must be traced to its claim to speak and act for all" (272). "The state's existence in perpetuity...is grounded in its ability to speak and at for everyone" (273). In order to be accurately represented, an individual must thus be free dependency on the choices of others (a condition that does not existent in cases of extreme poverty). A state cannot create (nor permit) the existence of private dependence therefore, and must ensure the conditions of formal equality of opportunity in order to create a body of citizens that may adequately respond to situations and choose the conditions that provide for self-respect. Ripstein explains why this standard helps permit the creation of the taxes, redistribution policies, as well as public systems of education and healthcare.
Yet this standard, that the united will limits the state to making "...arrangements for a person that that person could have agreed to, consistent with his or her rightful honor" (277) seems to presume that a general will of a society will be obvious. To maintain a government that truly fulfills the protections that a diverse society may ask for seems like a difficult standard to maintain given that these demands may conflict with others' within the same society.
I ask how this idea plays out in reality; how can we assess whether an individual would rightfully agree to any given societal condition? At what point in the scope of wealth does a person become independent from dependency? What institutional protections are needed to ensure a democracy in which all will's are represented (fully, without hinderance from others')?
No comments:
Post a Comment