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

50A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i c e∆ But the analogy between jobs and marriage partners seems obviously flawed. Marriageis an emotional relationship, not a commodity to be bought and sold. And while jobsproduce money to be taxed, marriage produce intangible satisfaction, comfort, and love.ϕ But jobs also involve close, personal relationships and fulfill emotional as wellas monetary needs. Both marriages and jobs also involve economic and socialexchange structured by law.Even so, I agree that the analogy between jobs and marriages can be pushed toofar. The core of Van Parijs’s claim is that the employment market does not clearbecause of efficiency wages and other structural impediments. It doesn’t makemuch sense (and indeed is a bit offensive) to ask whether the marriage “market”exhibits similar features. Do women (or men) pay above-market “efficiency wages”to secure the loyalty of their partners? I admit I don’t know how to think about thatquestion.∆ So you concede that the analogy fails?ϕ No. The scarcity question strains the analogy, but a return to first principlescasts light on the question of what a fair distribution of opportunities to marrymight look like. Real freedom in economic life requires fair background conditionsand access to a variety of life options. We can think of real freedom in formingrelationships – or "relational freedom" – as also requiring (1) fair backgroundconditions and (2) access to a variety of relationship options.These principles imply that a just society ought to provide everyone with theresources needed to sustain relationships and with fair opportunities to meetpeople, without unfair barriers due to race, class, or ability status. These principlesalso suggest legal reforms that would enable people to choose a wider variety ofrelationships – not just conventional marriage but a spectrum of “check the box”relationships including a range of legal rights and obligations.∆ That sounds complicated, and I have a hunch that “check the box” relationships couldadvantage the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. But at least you’ve given up on themarriage tax!ϕ Your hunch is right, and I have some preliminary thoughts about how tocombine freedom and protection for the vulnerable. But I haven’t abandoned themarriage tax entirely. I conclude that marriage partners are not scarce in principle:that is, it is possible to craft first-best arrangements that guarantee everyone a fairchance to marry. But, given the unfair conditions that today deny some the legalrights and economic resources they need to marry, a tax on those who can and domarry has some appeal.