Justice and History: the big problem of Wilt Chamberlain
It is well-known that income inequality has risen sharply in the US and in other developed countries of late. One obvious economic solution to high and rising inequality, government redistribution, raises philosophical questions regarding ethics or fairness. In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Robert Nozick raises just such questions. He argues that people have the right to acquire things that result from their sweat and their effort, as long as enough remains for others. Once property is acquired, people have the right to transfer it to others. His famous Wilt Chamberlain example gives this argument concreteness. Nozick has us imagine people attending a basketball game and freely giving Wilt $1. In this case, Wilt is legitimately entitled to this money. And what is true of Wilt is true of everyone else. Redistribution by the government is therefore neither fair nor just. This paper provides a four-pronged rebuttal to the Wilt Chamberlain example from an economic perspective. First, the Wilt Chamberlain example begins with an assumption that is not likely to be true in the real world-that initial distributions, stretching back in history, are by-and-large just. Second, there is a sort of fallacy of composition in Nozick's argument that is similar to the adding-up problem in economics. Third, good evidence exists that allowing people to freely contribute to Wilt would not yield fair results and there is further evidence that it would hurt others and likely also hurt Wilt. Finally, for John Locke and for the Wilt Chamberlain example, sufficient things must be left over for others at the time property is acquired. This ignores future generations and whether there will be sufficient property available for them.
Volume (Year): 18 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.economicissues.org.uk
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Zelleke, Almaz, 2005. "Distributive justice and the argument for an unconditional basic income," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 3-15, February.
- Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2003. "Income Inequality In The United States, 1913-1998," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 1-39, February.
- James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
- Deininger, Klaus & Squire, Lyn, 1998. "New ways of looking at old issues: inequality and growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 259-287.
- Christopher Brown, 2004. "Does income distribution matter for effective demand? Evidence from the United States," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 291-307.
- Anthony B. Atkinson & Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2009.
"Top Incomes in the Long Run of History,"
NBER Working Papers
15408, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Steven Pressman, 2011. "Policies to Reduce Child Poverty: Child Allowances Versus Tax Exemptions for Children," Journal of Economic Issues, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 45(2), pages 323-332, June.
- Marja Riihelä & Risto Sullström & Matti Tuomala, 2010. "Trends in top income shares in Finland 1966-2007," Research Reports 157, Government Institute for Economic Research Finland (VATT).
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eis:articl:113pressman. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dan Wheatley)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.