Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

402A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i c eWhat the difference principle does require is that during an appropriate internalof time the differences in income and wealth earned in producing the socialproduct be such that if the legitimate expectations of the more advantaged wereless, those of the less advantaged would also be less...Permissible inequalities(thus defined) satisfy that condition and are compatible with a social product of asteady-state equilibrium in which a just basic structure is supported andreproduced over time. (cp. Rawls 1975: 545; Pogge 1989: 197)Assuming the difference principle satisfies the maximinimizingrequirement, as Rawls expressly states elsewhere, as well as the nonmaximinimizingprinciple, to which he appeals here, it is puzzling to mewhy that principle does not favour economic growth within generations, andthus also across generations, assuming such gains will not always be lost. Ifthe difference principle does have this implausible implication, then in orderto accommodate the stationary state as an eligible option perhaps Rawlsneeds not merely to affirm the non-maximinimizing principle but toexplicitly eschew the maximinimizing principle. Mill’s wise remarks aboutthe stationary state, therefore, may provide some indirect support for thecase for linguistic protectionism by supplying additional grounds to doubtthat wealth maximinimization is a sound countervailing consideration.In a world like ours where the misuse of arguments for wealth promotionhas lead to a consumption arms race and the unprecedented humandestruction of nature, it is very tempting to conclude that linguistic patriotsshould unite under a red and green banner declaring a resounding “Non!”to the maximinimization of wealth.ReferencesMILL, J. S. (1994), Principles of Political Economy and Chapters on Socialism, ed. JonathanRiley, Oxford: Oxford University Press.POGGE, Th. (1989), Realizing Rawls, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.RAWLS, J. (1975), 'Fairness to Goodness', Philosophical Review, 84 (4): 536-554.RAWLS, J. (1999), A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Pressof Harvard University Press.RAWLS, J. (2001), Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press.VAN PARIJS, Ph. (2011), Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.