Video Transcript: Equality of Resources and the Difference Principle

Hi, welcome back. In this video, we're going to discuss equality of resources and the difference principle. So let's look at equality of resources. Right, strict  equality of resources holds that a distribution of property rights and resources is  just if and only if it results in everyone having the same amount of resources,  right? So that's equality of resources. Everybody has the same amount of  resources, right? This solves measurement and comparison problems, right? It  also solves the expensive taste problem, and and but the problem is, is leveling  down again, right? I have to level down my taste and my needs and my and my  wants and and everything else that goes with that. I have to make sure that I'm  on the, I will be on the same level as everyone else, right? So this is kind of  counter intuitive from the free market, but but but you have to realize that no one holds this view. Almost nobody holds this view. Not even pure socialists, right?  There's still a capitalism component to it. So let's look at John Rawls. John  Rawls is an American moral and political philosopher. In his book *A Theory of  Justice* Rawls proposed a general concept of justice: all social primary goods,  liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the basis of receives the same  resources unless an unequal distribution results in the least well off receiving  more than the self-respect are to be distributed equally if unless an equal  distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored.  Right? The difference principle says the distribution of rights and responsibilities  is just if and only if everyone maintains strict equal distribution, right? So, so this is kind of Rawls outlook that you know unequal distribution results in the least  well-off receiving more than the self-respect they deserve, right? So, so we  need. So this is how Rawls pictures unequal distribution, right? That that those  that are more well off, or that are less well off, excuse me, that are the least well  off, they need to receive more than just self-respect, right? So that was kind of  his view on on on this kind of distribution theory, right? So so the strength of this  argument is it distributes measurable income and wealth, avoids leveling down  objectively, and it creates incentive for people to contribute. So so even though  in this principle we're still seeing the free market component, there's still  somewhat of a of a redistribution of wealth, right, to help bring up the the you  know the the less fortunate in in society. So so this is kind of where his mindset  was with this. We can still you know create wealth and we can still drive income  and sales, right? But and so we can avoid the leveling down concept because  even though I have more money, I can be more protected because now I know  that the social welfare of even the less fortunate are taken care of, right? So  there is some common sense into this principle, right? So so, but but it kind of  moves towards a kind of socialistic environment. But but but we we don't want to go fully socialistic, right? We want to make sure that people are taken care of,  but that free market capitalism is still intact, right? So the weaknesses of this  argument of this argument: no extra shares for natural handicaps, and and it  does not hold people responsible for their choices, right? So a lot of times, 

people are that are in less fortunate situations have made bad choices, right?  They didn't work hard in school. They didn't try to better themselves in society,  right? So they so they're a detriment to themselves to the choices they've made, right? So so there's a lot of arguments about which way this should go, right?  But I'm talking about my perspective, and what I would like for you to understand is that as employers, right, we need to get away from the differentiation and the  discrimination, and pay people right, right, and pay people correctly, right. So  therefore, we can bring them up out of poverty, right? Through good jobs, good paying jobs, right? And that way, they can lift up their family and reinvest and  create their own wealth. Now, that is the principles that we should learn from this class. But I just want to show you some different examples and some different  mindsets on these. Equality stances, right? Equality of resources. So this is  initial quality. Equality of resources. Ronald Dworkin, right? So equality of  resources say that a distribution of rights and responsibilities is just if and only if  it is the result of people's free choices after an initial strictly equal distribution of  resources, coupled with insurance against natural handicaps, right? So, still an  equal distribution of resources, right? But then people have free choices once  they are distributed equally these resources, right? And then and they want to  have a built-in insurance against natural handicaps to ensure that they aren't left out and they receive the ample care that they deserve. Right. So this is ambition sensitive. Right. Initially, initial it's strictly equal distribution of resources. After  this, people's choices determine their fair share. So once I get my equal  distribution of my resources, now I can go into the market and I can create and  be whoever I want, right? So, so this kind of idea provides a natural safety net  for everyone in society. But I still have the right to choose in the free market. But  we do have, like I said, the security and this insurance net, right? So this is  endowment insensitive. A hypothetical insurance market provides extra resource to those with higher costs due to handicaps, right? So a little bit of a downside  here, but you know what? We need to make sure that those with a handicap are  provided for, right? We live in a social community that we all need to be viewed  as equals. So equality of resources, according to Dworkin, so the strengths are  incentives, right? So I'm giving you incentive to continue to go and create and  be, you know, full of ingenuity and innovative, right? Now, now I have to take  responsibility for my choices because I get the same amount of equal resources  as everybody else. Then I decide what I do with those resources, right? And  ensure. against natural disadvantages such as handicaps. Right, so the  weaknesses of this argument distribution will depend on both choices and luck  right, and it presupposes individual production rather than specialization and  division of labor. Right, so so so here we're really we're really getting our you  know so so it's not as equally as distributed as you would think right because  some people are in a position that is more advantageous than others even  though we are all receiving the same resources provided in this case by the 

government extremely complicated in actual application. It's it's it's great in  theory, but can it really work? Who knows.