Shades of Grey

Ironically enough, we are discussing Robert Nozick and Mill in my political philosophy class, basically the exact same topic, so that makes me happy haha. Anyway you look at it, Grey's theory seems unrealistic in my opinion. There are just too many hurdles to jump in order to prevent this level of poverty in America, and especially the world, from happening. In a sense, poverty is necessary(or at the very least, recommended) for a society. Without poverty there is not enough economic ability to provide moderately nice standards of living for many. Now, you might think that statement is ridiculous coming from a Peace Studies major, but hear me out. [This all assumes that I understood Grey accurately] Say you have a society in which Grey's idea of redistribution is used. This society uses taxes, which we'll assume for now is not stealing, in order to redistribute wealth in a way that ups the bar of all of those persons in poverty to a basic standard of living, including only basic necessities such as food, water, and shelter. However, there is only enough wealth to go around, and this doesn't take into account immigrants(nor emigrants, but that's another matter). Sooner or later you end up with too many persons who need aid and not enough aid to go around. By aiding the poor to this extent you are systematically lowering the standards of society, creating an even larger economic gap between the rich and poor. Now there are only two groups left in society, a lower middle-class, and the rich elite. Does this aid society as a whole? Maybe, we have no more impediments on our fundamental human rights. However, is that all a society is meant to be? What is the purpose of government, only to provide to everyone basic necessities? Nothing more? The situation only gets worse when dealing with international issues.

Now, I'm not going to bash this article anymore, as I actually really liked it. I felt that, whereas it wasn't a major point, Grey's pointing out errors in our constitution and welfare system were valid points; to be frank, they sort of suck when it comes to human rights. He poses questions such as the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment vs. the legality of the death penalty as a means of punishing criminals for murder; to what extent should single mothers with young children be force to work; and how many rooms are necessary for what size of family? I think that the first example really is relevant to our class considering we've discussed torture and such. I guess both are used to deter criminals, but should we try to achieve a minimal punishment in order to do so, or would the maximum punishment serve as an absolute warning to those thinking of murdering?

It just seems like there is no real solution to something like this minus a state of nature occurring first. That is, as all societies, or at least most of them, already have a system in place, it is hard to fathom the complete change of a structure so intricate in order to save society from poverty. However, with small steps it might be achievable. Small laws and ordinances, all using legitimate means of capturing resources, and eventually up-ing the bar to a certain standard. I feel that a big issue with welfare problems currently is one Grey pointed out near the end: the threat of people 'taking advantage' of them. I'm sure there are many cases of welfare fraud each year as well as people who have children for no purpose other than collecting more welfare. Does that make the welfare system bad? Not at all, however it raises a question as to what extent our welfare system is being used by those who -truly- need it. I guess that's all I have to say for now.

Think about this: Tons of people die every day, from disease, violence, natural causes, and a number of other means that are uncontrolable. Is society obligated to prolong life to the point where humans become useless, resource sucking beings? Because it seems to be the point where society is headed.