What are George W. Bush’s greatest achievements and failures? How will history judge him?

At the end of George W. Bush’s presidency the United States was left in a state of turmoil: in an economic crisis and in the midst of two wars in the Middle East which are not supported by the majority of Americans. Former President Bush has been harshly criticized by bestselling books by Bob Woodward, by the media, by both America and other nations worldwide. He is judged on the grounds of his failures as well his disliked personality and character which is portrayed by the media. George Bush arguably had many failures in his two consecutive terms in office, like for instance not signing the Kyoto protocol, his views on torture, and his weakened relations with Russia.  However, this essay will concentrate on the most talked about and arguable most important issues such as the controversial entry into the Iraq war as well as other foreign policy mishaps and failures in the domestic front. It will become apparent in this paper that the failures of George W. Bush in his two terms outweigh the successes, however, it is not to say that there were no successes for there were various domestic successes in his time including the tax cuts and the No Child Left Behind act. The first part of this essay will discuss what I have found to be the greatest failures of Bush, and the second part of this paper will thereafter assess what I think were Bush´s greatest achievements. What this essay will attempt to conclude is how former President Bush will be judged in the future- will he always be judged as the President who brought America into two unpopular and arguably illegitimate wars in the Middle East? Will it depend on whether one is ideologically more towards the left or right side of the political spectrum?

One of the greatest failures of George W. Bush was entering into a controversial war with Iraq and Afghanistan. 9/11 refers to a day marked by fear, confusion, vulnerability, and death in America. On September the 11^th, 2001 planes were high-jacked and then crashed on to the world trade center, and a plane was also crashed strategically onto the Pentagon later on the same day. This was the day which changed American foreign policy and which led to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. At first the war in Iraq received high public support, and according to Amy Gershkoff this was  “because the Bush Administration successfully framed the conflict as an extension of the war on terror, which was a response to the September 11, 2001”[1] attacks. However, today the polls show a big difference in opinion- around 67% in 2007 said it was not going well and 57%[2] said they should withdraw troops, and today, public opinion shows that there is more opposition towards the war. There are many reasons for this change of opinion from the start of the war until the present day. Firstly, the war can be classified as illegal or illegitimate in the sense that the US did not achieve a mandate from the UN to enter the war. Because of this Kofi Annan said in an interview: “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Other reasons which led to the low manifestation of support for the war are linked to not finding either any weapons of mass destruction, and or not finding any links to Al Qaeda or the attacks in 2001. To a great extent the fact that 4, 287 have died in Iraq and that 30, 182[3] have been wounded in a war which can be described a pointless, means that only a small percent of the nation still supports the war. Lastly, the war has been extremely costly crossing the $300 trillion mark- many Americans aren’t happy that their tax dollars are feeding the war that they don’t believe in. because of all said above, it will be hard to believe that many Americans are in favor of Bush on this account. Bush will probably be judged negatively for a long time because of placing America in the midst of an unnecessary war with no casus belli.

One of the greatest domestic failures of former president George W. Bush was the way in which he tackled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Bush’s attempts at handling the catastrophe have been described as the most embarrassing political disaster by Jack Cafferty and described as an act of carelessness of Bush’s part by the New York Times. The Hurricane hit the United States late August 2005 and “devastated the Gulf Coats of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi and triggered the failures of levees surrounding New Orleans”[4]. This disaster has claimed almost 2000 deaths and has displaced more than a half a million people. [5]Former president Bush was blamed for being slow, incompetent and careless. Indeed, federal troops were only sent in days after the disaster, and they were extremely slow in that it took troops between 2 and 5 days to get there, because roads and highways were flooded[6]. People were hence starving, and thirsty on their roofs and in the superdome for days, waiting for some type of response. Broadcasters and news reporters got in on the first day and for days of filming the disaster they were wondering why no troops were coming in to remove the population and to bring any sort of aid, and the disaster and Bush’s failures were visible to the entire world.  The Bush administration was heavily criticized for the way in which it dealt with this disaster, and this was mirrored in the decrease of public support for Bush from 60% to 49% in the time span of two weeks[7]. The Union Leader, which is known to be arguably the most conservative newspaper in the United States wrote: “a better leader would have flown straight to the disaster zone and announced immediate mobilization of every available resource… the cool, confident, intuitive leadership Bush exhibited in his first term, particularly in the months immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, has vanished”[8]. Because of this, President Bush’s Image was wrecked to most Americans, and to many people worldwide, who saw him more interested in the Iraq war than helping Americans in a grave Disaster. 

            George Bush was at a disadvantage at the beginning of his first term as President: this was because Bush was the “the first candidate since 1888 to be elected with fewer popular votes than his principal opponent”[9]. Because of this, many thought his win of the election was illegitimate, especially the democrats. After such a controversial election, the first thing Bush needed to do was increase his legitimacy and gain some credibility. He was urged by many “to act as if he were indeed paralyzed, proposing only policies that enjoyed bipartisan support”[10], however, boldly, Bush decided to go un-intimidated and went forth with his some of his initiatives. The Bush administration decided on a $1.35 trillion tax cuts, which he then signed a bill on in June the 7^th 2001[11]. This tax cut was one of his many top priorities, and he decided to do it soon after elections with a hope that it would be a policy “that both unified and energized Republicans”[12]. He also thought that “although most congressional Democrats would oppose cuts, a majority of the public, including Independents and even some Democrats, would support or at least tolerate them.”[13] Bush and his advisors were expecting the tax cuts policy to show the competence of the Bush administration since it was early on in his first term. This was a successful move in the sense that he took a bold move and initiated a huge important bill when he had little public support nor a majority or a plurality of seats in both houses of congress. This move was also successful because it meant that Bush established himself as a powerful decision making president instead of acting in “paralysis” as advised. This was also important because usually congress “is unlikely to defer to the president for long” and will in turn set their own policy agendas, hence acting with power so early on meant George Bush would have a significant place in agenda setting, and policy initiation. Most importantly it showed Bush keeping his campaign promises and increasing his credibility. However, the tax cuts were unsuccessful in that it did not move the public: the public didn’t seem heavily impressed with the Bill. Indeed only 53% in February 2001 were in favor of the tax cut- even with his great campaign and travels around 29 states to promote the tax cuts had a minimal change. Also, he only managed to persuade one democratic senate (Zell Miller) to support him on tax cuts.

            Just as tax cuts increased the credibility of George W. Bush to some Americans, so did the No Child Left Behind act which aimed to increase the education standards in America. Increasing the education standards was one of the main issues that Bush campaigned about in his presidential race[14]. Hence, he was applauded by many for tackling this issue relatively early on in his first term, and so soon after the tax cuts:  indeed, it was passed by the senate by June the 14^th 2001, and it was made into law by January 2002. The No child Left Behind act was in brief based on the belief that in setting high standards students would be more motivated and hence would achieve higher grades. The act entails schools to be accountable for testing and the achievements and consequently can receive federal funding. However, if the standards of examination were to decrease, funding could be stopped[15]. The act saw an increase of funding education from $42.2billion to $55.7 billion from 2001 to 2004, and from $6.3billion to $10.1billion for children with disabilities[16].  Moreover, there were great improvements seen in the level of education. Indeed, nine and thirteen year olds showed a noticeable increase in reading and math, and more importantly the achievement gaps between whites, Hispanics and blacks has never been lower[17]. This definitely suggests that Bush indeed is a Uniter rather than a Divider, as promised in his campaign. In fact this act was “widely hailed as a bipartisan Breakthrough- a victory for American Children, particularly those traditionally underserved by public schools”[18]. Even though the act seems to be a success, only young age groups seemed affected by the act, which means people were still graduating with the same grades, and not entering the working world with better chances of succeeding. There have been many complaints and controversies about the system which “assumes that what schools need is more carrots and sticks rather than fundamental changes”[19]. Because of this, it is hard to imagine that the future will judge this as an outstanding achievement of George W. Bush, because the bill didn’t reach its expected targets.

             The third and last achievement that this paper will discuss is the two appointments to the Supreme Court. During his presidency, George W. Bush saw the chance to nominate two people to the Supreme Court because of the retirement of Sandra day O´Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist. With the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush nominated John Roberts, who was originally meant take the place of Sarah O’connor when she would retire. His choice of John Roberts was applauded by many, since he "has devoted his entire professional life to the cause of justice and is widely admired for his intellect, his sound judgment and personal decency." Also, more importantly, he was seen as a close to perfect candidate to maintain the ideological balance, since both Chief of Justice Rehnquist and John Roberts were “ideologically conservative”[20]. The second appointment wasn’t as popular as the one of John Roberts. As Sandra Day O’Connor retired, Bush wanted to replace the moderate O’Connor with a conservative Samuel Alito. As expected, this move was not welcomed by democrats, because it was an obvious move towards the conservatives advantage. So democratically speaking the second appointment was not a democratic success which favored democrats, however, it was a success for republicans, whose views would be more represented in the Supreme Court. This was extremely important for Bush because “Senator James Jeffords of Vermont left the republican party, shifting the majority in the senate to the democrats”[21]. It was also important because republicans were at a disadvantage when they “lost seats in both houses of congress” when Bush first came into power. Lastly, moving the Supreme Court towards the right was a positive move for Bush because he was able to justify more of political moves with justice. With the appointments, the republican voice can live on in the realm of Justice.

There are various studies which were conducted on Bush’s approval rates, and one by Richard Eichenberg and Richard Stoll strongly suggests that at least for the next generations Bush has been “ruined” to the public[22]. According to their study, the defining factor was the Iraq war[23]. So hypothetically, America could have forgiven former president Bush for his other failures, had it not been for the Iraq war. Moreover, I think how George Bush will be judged depends greatly on whether one is ideologically conservative or more liberal.  Since on the domestic front, President Bush has served the Republicans well with the tax cuts, the two appointments, and even with the rising of the education standards, I would expect a big percentage of Republicans to still think of him positively. Overall I think he will not be judged well in world history, for as discussed before, the failures of war, and almost neglect of his own people in New Orleans as well as his many other failures which were shortly mentioned, outweigh the successes. Thus, leading to the consequent demise of his image.

A Brief Review of Eric Neumayer's Paper: 'Global Warming: Discounting is not the issue, but substitutability is'

We are at a stage whereby human activity has potentially huge and long term “consequences on both environmental amenities and the capacity to provide material well being.” Global warming is one of these consequences which will have both economic and environmental repercussions. The greatest impact of global warming will primarily be felt by future generations, hence the benefits of greenhouse gas emission abatement are aimed for them, whilst the costs will be borne by today’s generation. However, global warming being such a complex premise implies that not all of its outcomes are negative; indeed, some regions will actually benefit from global warming. Russia would be one of the countries which would be affected positively, seeing as it is close to the poles. The concept of global warming is so contested that “older estimates of damage due to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere range between 1-2.5% of GDP”. However, newer studies have tended to show that it is more economically viable to tackle adaptability rather than greenhouse gas abatement. Seeing as global warming is such a disputed issue it follows that there has been great debate on how to manage it. The principle of discounting has been at the center of this debate.

                Eric Neumayer’s paper discusses the relevance of discounting on tackling global warming. Neumayer first presents the neoclassical approach by concentrating on William Nordhaus’s study of 1994. Nordhaus implicitly assumes the validity of perfect substitutability (which is at the center of the weak sustainability paradigm). Arguably one of the ways in which he achieves this, is in the manner he discounts the future. Nordhaus’s formula for discounting is the infamous Ramsey formula of 1928 (which is shown below.)

Symbol	Definition	Figures assigned by Nordhaus
r	social discount rate	6%
p	pure rate of time preference	3%
n(c)	product of the elasticity of the	1
	marginal utility of consumption
C/C	per capita  growth rate of	3
	comsumption

Per capita growth rate of consumption (C/C) is not tremendously important in Neumayer’s discussion. In fact, irrespective of its value, the assumption is that environmental costs and benefits can be substituted by material costs and benefits. Moreover, according to Nordhaus, “given that n(c) C/C > 0, the future should count less because it is then presumed to be better off due to the increase in consumption”.

                Nordhaus’s study has received a lot of speculation. Most critics disapprove of his social discount rate of 6% and his pure rate of time preference of 3%. Indeed, many environmental economists have wanted to set the pure rate of time preference to zero “for reasons of intergenerational fairness”. The premise is that being of a future generation shouldn’t be a reason for being of less value. However, Neumayer observes various problems with the critics’ propositions, especially those to lower the discount rate. The first being that lowering the discount rate is dubious, seeing as future generations have been estimated to be 4.5 times richer 100 years from now. The second problem is that lowering the discount rate means that society must channel scarce financial resources for the purpose of combating global warming when current populations are in need of the resources today. Lastly, and arguably most importantly Neumayer is of the opinion that such propositions do not attack the real issue in Nordhaus’s methodology, which is his “underlying assumption of perfect substitutability”.

                Rigorous emission abatement must presuppose that natural capital and manufactured capital are less than perfect substitutes for each other. Indeed, proponents of strong sustainability are of the opinion that natural capital cannot be substituted by human-made capital. There is a consensus emerging that global warming is putting ecosystems under stress and therefore damaging the capacity of natural capital to provide food, medicine, purify water, control floods and more. “Since natural capital as such should be kept intact, strong sustainability calls for aggressive policies to combat global warming”. According to this view, held by proponents of strong sustainability, seeing as natural capital cannot be substituted, “global warming has to be prevented quite regardless of the costs of doing so”. The question Neumayer asks is: But is it really true that damages to natural capital cannot be compensated for with higher consumption levels?

                To conclude, we can ask ourselves the following question- if substitutability is the key issue and discounting is not, then what steps need to be taken to manage global warming? Strong sustainability calls for stringent CO2 emission abatement policies whilst weak sustainability calls for lenient abatement policies. Both strong and weak sustainability have negative and positive propositions.  The question Neumayer asks is which of these proponents are correct? I think the answer to this question depends on whether future generations will value natural capital or consumption more.

A Critique of the Main Ideas that Influence the way that Americans Think about Politics

The constitution of the United States was created by a group of great liberal men like James Madison with the aim of constructing a nation state that would primarily reject tyranny; that would be based on individual freedoms and rights, and equality of men. This was the first Liberal state in the world that was born arguably purely out of liberalism, without having to fight for the ideal or undergo a revolution- “With freedom thus a matter of birthright and not of conquest” (Schlesinger, 1962) America is hence an extraordinary modern Liberal state. The average “American assumes liberalism as one of the presuppositions of life”. (Schlesinger, 1962) The most significant of modern liberal ideas that influence the way that Americans think about politics are arguably Liberty and individual rights; equality of opportunity and democracy. It is these three ideas that this essay will in brief describe and critique in the modern context.

                The first part of this essay will attempt to describe in simple terms and evaluate the idea of liberty and individual rights.  Firstly I would like to justify the reason why this essay chooses to talk about liberty as one of its significant ideas that influence the way that Americans think about politics. The main reason is that the United States constitution commences with the statement that: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union (…) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.(U.S  Constitution) Early liberty in the United States was described as: one is truly free when one is free to do what one wants without intervention- however Thomas Jefferson another founding father added that “If I do not hurt anyone else, I should be free to pursue my own will”(Brooks, 2008). Jefferson also believed that a wise government is one that only interferes by preventing men from hurting one another (Brooks,2008). Even though the idea of liberty has changed since then, two thirds of American citizens “define freedom in terms of doing what they want, being able to make their own choices, or having liberty in speech and religion”(Brooks,2008).  The American nation stands as a big symbol for freedom- however turns of events in the last nine years has begged the question- to what degree has freedom and individual rights influenced American politics in recent years?

                There have been major discussions about how the American state has undermined civil liberties since the war on terror began. Various episodes such as ; a couple getting arrested on the grounds of having an American flag hung upside down on their porch to show dislike of the Iraq war (News ABC 13, 2007) have shown the weakening of individual rights- for this couple was arrested purely in demonstrating opinion with no aggression.  Also tightening of security and increased state control has also arguably decreased the freedom of people to some degree. However, one of the major topics which lead this critique on this American ideal is the legalization of torture as an interrogation technique brought forward by the Bush Administration. This can possibly be the first time in which an American government has “agreed to set aside the provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” (World Socialist Website, 2006). Alongside the validation of torture, some laws were released which permit the president to appoint any one as an “unlawful enemy combatant,”(World Socialist Website,2006) who can be imprisoned for an indefinite period without any legal choice. Because of the flexible understanding of the Bush administration as to “what constitutes ‘hostilities’, this definition has the potential to erase any legal distinction between an actual Al Qaeda terrorist, an Arab immigrant who makes a charitable donation to Lebanese relief, and an American college student who clashes with police during a protest demonstration against the Iraq war.”(World Socialist Website,2006)  This may sound farfetched; however the war on terror has resulted to some degree on the American government in bringing forth methods which have been conventionally used in Police states. To the same effect the American Civil Liberties Union has held that “this wave of anti- terrorist activity, all in the name of national security, also launched one of the most serious civil liberties crises our nation has ever seen”(Delsch, 2008). However, it is important to keep in mind that American Illiberality cannot be blamed solely on the war on terror because the government has undermined domestic liberties before: predominately in inter-state wars.

When critiquing the Ideal of Liberty, I am of the opinion that it all comes down to how one perceives liberty- if you are a positive librettist and think that by further state control your liberties will be enhanced or whether you think the state power should be minimized to only keeping national order. This would explain that by the state in maximizing control- and reducing civil liberties with the war on terror- it could hypothetically be increasing your liberties – however if you take the negative liberty stance- then you will think that your liberties are being minimized with so much state control. Another small example for why this philosophical critique is important is by looking at the right to bear arms. If you are a negative librettist- you would be more likely to think that one should be allowed to bear arms- and if you were a positive librettist you would be more likely to disagree on the rights to bear arms.

So as I have criticized how the land stamped with the great symbol of liberty has Undermined civil liberties and rights, I have also explained that this coin is two sided- and the critique on this matter will depend on the individual criticizer itself- i.e. if I were a positive librettist I wouldn’t criticize America to such a great degree on increasing state control for the countries security.

Now moving on to the second part of this essay, where Equality of Opportunity, another highly disputed idea which influences American political thought will be briefly illustrated and analyzed. The concept of Equality has always been fundamental since the formation of the United States. In 1776 it was written in the American Declaration of Independence that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” (MacKenzie, 2005) Even though the concept of equality has changed greatly in the last centuries- there is a common shared thought about the importance of equality in providing justice. The concept of equality that the American nation (as well as most western democracies (Mackenzie, 2005)) lives by is the idea of equality of opportunity. This requires that “all persons in a society have an equal chance or prospect of securing the important social and political goods” (Mackenzie, 2005) such as education and the right to vote. Equality of opportunity also entails that everyone should be able to reach high positions of social and political prestige, “authority and great financial reward” (Mackenzie, 2005) without discrimination when it comes to race, social background and sex. America is known in theory, but not in practice for carrying the big name of the Land of Opportunities and the conception of the American Dream.

                Equality of opportunity is a respected and arguably an active concept, that had a woman, Hillary Clinton and afro-Americans run for president from both sides of the political spectrum this last election, and had Barack Obama win the election as president on the 4rth of November 2008. Even though African-American men gained the right to vote in 1870 and women in general later in 1918, it was after the 60’s that major changes towards equality of opportunity were seen: gender barriers have broken since then with women “now able to pursue most of the same economic and political opportunities as men” (Jacobs, et al, 2004) and “racial segregation and exclusion were no longer legal or socially accepted” (Jacobs, et al, 2004). However, it can be argued that even though the American nation has become more integrative, and equality has spread within society to different races, sex and ethnicity; there is a growing gap in income and wealth. There isn’t just a gap between the so called rich and poor, “but also between privileged professionals, managers, and business owners on the one hand, and the middle strata (...) on the other hand” (Jacobs, et al, 2004). The rich one and two percent have generally become even richer and the people in the middle class are struggling to keep their middle class position with two working parents. According to the American Political Science association the middle class families that struggle even more are the families which are head by a woman, African Americans and Latinos (Jacobs, et al, 2004).  This leads us to the next point which shows that there are still racial, ethnic and gender cleavages. Statistics hold that the average “white household earned 62 percent more income and possessed twelvefold more wealth than a median black household” (Piketty, et al, 2003). Even though African- Americans and other races were emancipated by the Civil Rights era, there is still a huge gap between them and the white America. (Jacobs, et al, 2004)

Undeniably women, Afro-Americans and other minorities like Latinos have gained equality for they can now vote, everyone can engage in education for its widespread and integrative. Today you also have women and afro-Americans working in all sectors. Nevertheless, women still get paid up to 25,000 dollars less (Vanderbilt University, 2007)  for the same job of a man, and Afro-Americans have it even worse in most cases. As I perceive this, there is definitely not the same chance for a white male and the rest of the population to succeed. So should the American nation hold the beacon of Land of opportunities or advertise the idea of the American dream which can be a reality for white American men, but that remains a dream to the majority of the nation?  Is equality of opportunity then a central idea that influences American political thought in practice? 

The third and last part of this essay will move onto describing and assessing the concept that Americans have proudly attempted to spread onto other nations. This is the notion of Democracy. This concept originated in Ancient Greece. The word Democracy comes from ‘Kratos’ meaning power or rule and the word ‘demos’ meaning people- hence democracy at its simplest means ‘rule by the people’ (Heywood, 2007). Democracy has developed to a significant degree through time- for instance from classical democracy, to developmental democracy. However, to understand the common understanding of democracy in America, one only needs to look at Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech in 1864. Lincoln “extolled the virtues of what he called ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’” (Heywood, 2007). However various modern political thinkers such as Noam Chomsky have found themselves suggesting that America is not a government, ‘of’, ‘by’ and ‘for’ the general public , but a government ‘of’, ‘by’ and ‘for’ a specific group of people: the rich elite.

Americans, according to opinion polls “accept considerable disparities of income and wealth” (Jacobs, et al, 2004) however, Americans in general celebrate that in theory everyone has “equal voice in representative government” (Jacobs, et al, 2004) because it is a right that belongs with everyone in spite of social and ethnic background and  sex. However, 90% of those who earn over 75,000 dollars per year claimed they have voted in elections, while just half of those who earn less than 15,000 dollars per year claimed to vote (Jacobs, et al, 2004). Interestingly up to 66% of those who didn’t vote said that “public officials don’t care about what people think” (Jacobs, et al, 2004) as their reasons for not voting. What is more interesting is that there is some truth to what these 66% of the people are suggesting: there is undemocratic action going on at every level in governments, and parties. Such actions include laws which prohibit current and former prisoners to vote, and more importantly, (What I shall concentrate on), how political parties and campaigns “focus their resources on citizens who are affluent and are already active politically.” (Jacobs, et al, 2004).  The reason why this happens is primarily because of donations. More affluent people are in the positions to make donations to their parties of choice when in power and when campaigning; in fact 95% of the people giving donations are generally from the richest households of the nation (Jacobs, et al, 2004).  In return for the donations the donators get a chance to express their opinions in a way that the average American cannot. This undemocratic phenomenon happens primarily because both the major parties (Democrats and the Republicans) are extremely reliant on “campaign contributors and activists, and have gotten used to competing for just over a half of a shrinking universe of voters” (Jacobs, et al, 2004).  Also, because the less affluent are much less likely to vote, the parties concentrate their campaigns, and to some degree policies, on the better off in society because, they will be more likely to vote for them. Because of these pressures on the parties :

“Citizens with lower or moderate incomes speak with a whisper that is lost on the ears of inattentive government officials, while the advantaged roar with a clarity and consistency that policymakers readily hear and routinely follow” (Jacobs, et al, 2004).                                                      

I think to some degree the poor and the worse off are in fault for this phenomenon- it is true that they must get unmotivated because (as mentioned before) they feel like they aren’t listened too- however only 3% (Jacobs, et al, 2004) of the worse off take part in non expense marches and demonstrations- this means that the badly off are in fault to some degree as well, since they don’t take initiative. 

As a non-American Citizen, after analyzing briefly the concept of democracy as the Americans see it and the current reality of the situation of democracy- this is how it appears to myself- there seems to be a vicious circle, where the worst off aren’t voting, which is “the most obvious means for Americans to exercise their rights of citizenship”(Jacobs, et al, 2004). Because they are not voting, the parties don’t bother to focus on the constituency, and hence the parties don’t provide attention to the worst off, and in turn the electorate doesn’t feel they want to vote. If something doesn’t happen to break this cycle, it may, and will probably spiral into bigger divides. America is prematurely attempting to Spread the ideal they so believe in, since they haven’t mastered the concept themselves.

                In summary, Americans are driven by these liberal ideals of Liberty, equality of opportunity and democracy, that as we have seen, in practice, they are flawed. It is fair to say that they do influence the way that Americans think about politics, however because of the flaws, they only influence to a certain extent. The nation must be applauded for attempting to live by these ideals, however I am of the opinion that the US, should not carry big names like the ‘Land of Opportunity’, or the ‘American Dream’ and even more so, it should not attempt to spread democracy to other states like to the Iraq, when they themselves don’t live in a active democracy.

To what Extent has the European Parliament been a Consistent Winner in Successive Rounds of EU Treaty Negotiations since the Single European Act?

Many scholars would agree that the European Parliament (EP) is “one of the world’s more powerful elected chambers” . Indeed, the EP has increased greatly in power since it was originally created as a result of the treaty of Rome in 1957. The EP has evolved from a purely consultative body into “the most powerful interstate assembly in history” . It has been suggested by academics such as Simon Hix, and Roger Scully that there has been a “steady increase in the powers of the EP” . They claim that the steady increase started ever since it became an elected institution in 1979, and especially after the EP gained veto power against the entry of new incoming member states with the Single European Act (SEA). Even though it has had a phenomenal enhancement of power, it does “tend to win in some areas but not in others”, and after the SEA, arguably not all treaties have increased its power to the same extent. In this post I will discuss the advancement of the EP’s power as a result of the treaties after the SEA: looking closely at the Maastricht Treaty, the Treaty of Amsterdam, The Treaty of Nice, and the recent Lisbon Treaty. The extent of power gained at each treaty will be analyzed in order to conclude on whether the EP has been a consistent winner after the SEA. It will become apparent that even though the EP has evolved tremendously since the SEA, the increase is not exactly “consistent”.

Before the discussion can be commenced, it is important to briefly explain what I recognize as the EP “winning”. The EP has been an institution with limited powers. Even today, it is a legislative institution without the ability to propose legislation. It has shown “high demand for an increase of influence” , and therefore, “winning” will be defined as the increase of power.

The first treaty to be discussed is the Maastricht Treaty, which was signed on February the 7th in 1992. The treaty indentifies “enhancing the democratic functioning of the institutions of the European Union as one of its objectives” . Since the EP was the only directly elected body of the European Union, this meant that consequentially it was to be emancipated. Article 138 of the treaty explains that a “right of initiative was created, committees of inquiry were reinforced, the right of petition was recognized, and Ombudsman was created” . However, arguably the most important evolvement was the addition of a further legislative procedure. The Treaty of Rome introduced the consultation procedure, which implied that the EP had to be consulted on most legislation by other European institutions, although they could ignore it at their discretion . A second procedure, the so-called co-operation procedure, was introduced in the SEA under article 252 which allowed the EP to have two readings of Legislation, however, “ultimately allowed the commission and the Council a final say” . The Maastricht Treaty however, established a third procedure which to a great extent increased the powers of the EP. The third legislative procedure is the co-decision procedure (I), which “gives the European Parliament a much stronger role than it had hitherto” . Under co-decision (which acts like an extension of cooperation), if the Council and the EP do not agree after two readings, a conciliation committee would be summoned, “where an equal number of representatives from the EP and Council would try to reconcile their differences.” If differences couldn’t be reconciled, then the Council would make an offer to the EP, which could be either accepted or rejected. This meant that the EP had gained more powers, however, on the other hand, “the Maastricht version of this procedure still allowed the council to control the final stages of the legislative game” . Additionally, this procedure would only apply to a limited set of policy areas. Deidre Curtin has hence found that “the co-decision procedure is formally one of co-decision but with the effective balance of power indisputably weighed towards the council” . Arguably, the EP has also developed indirect powers from the treaty. Since the contracts were incomplete , it was able to interpret the treaty to its advantage and “threaten not to cooperate with the governments unless they accepted the EPs interpretations” . Because the EP had the capability to manipulate the other institutions with its interpretations, Simon Hix suggests that this led “EU governments to institutionalize these practices with the Treaty of Amsterdam.” Overall, there is definite increase of the powers of the EP with the Maastricht treaty.

The second treaty to be analyzed is the Treaty of Amsterdam which was signed on the second of October 1997. The treaty made significant changes to the Maastricht Treaty and made a special emphasis on increasing further the power of the EP. It has been argued by many that the EP gained greatly from this treaty. Philip Lynch is of the opinion that “the EP has been portrayed as one of the ‘winners’ as a result of the Amsterdam Treaty” . Similarly, Simon Hix created a model in 2002 which shows a distinct increase in power from the Treaty of Maastricht to the Treaty of Amsterdam . Firstly, legislative procedures have been significantly simplified with the near elimination of the cooperation procedure. The cooperation procedure would only be used for a few cases. Secondly, the co-decision procedure has been balanced and simplified. With the new co-decision procedure (II), processes have been made simpler: A parliament can “directly reject a proposal rather than having to go through the cumbersome intension-to-reject stage” . Also, the ability of the Council to enforce a common position, when there is a lack of agreement between the Council and the EP , has been abolished. Moreover, the co-decision procedure was changed in the treaty in order to provide further balance between the Council and the EP:

“Where the conciliation committee does not approve a joint text, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted” .

This change makes the final stage of the procedure the conciliation committee and in turn the “EP and the Council are genuine ‘co-legislators’” . The further balance between the Council and the EP has additionally been achieved by the extension of policy areas of co-decision. The policy areas include the employment policy, the internal market and social policy among others. A third development of the Amsterdam Treaty regards the EP’s role in Commission President Nominations. It is not longer simply consulted on the nominee for president, “the Parliament must now formally give its approval” . This is arguably one of the most successful advancements of the treaty, as it allows for direct Scrutiny of the Commission. . Lastly, the EP has also been granted more power of assent and a further extension of the consultation procedure. On the whole, there seems to be a considerable increase in power which has been delegated to the EP, and one could suggest that they have gained further recognition. However, the increased status and powers of the EP fall “short of the European Parliaments Proposal that co-decision become the normal legislative procedure.” Indeed, many important policy areas such as fiscal harmonization and agriculture do not fall under co-decision, but rather under the consultation procedure. Additionally, no serious debate took place in the treaty about the EP’s demands in the budgetary arena . Even though the EP would have wanted more power and responsibility, it gained considerably from the Treaty of Amsterdam.

The Treaty of Nice has been commended for bringing the EP closer to its national counterparts. Even though this is true, if compared to how much was achieved by the Treaty of Maastricht, and especially by the Amsterdam Treaty, the Treaty of Nice has achieved far less. This is probably due to the fact that the treaty concentrated predominately on EU enlargement, rather than tackling the democratic deficit. One of the few positive developments was that the EP was being “placed on an equal footing as the commission, the council and the member states with regard to the right to bring actions for judicial review of community acts by the court of justice.” This is not an outstanding ‘right’; nevertheless, the status of equality with the other governing EU institutions does upgrade its recognition. Moreover, “the treaty of Nice does not specifically address changes to the co-decision procedures” ; nevertheless, the treaty of Nice makes the list of policy areas, which fall under co-decision, even longer under article 137. Nonetheless, only five new policy areas were to be used under co-decision, which is comparatively lower than the fifteen to thirty-eight increase from Maastricht to Amsterdam. The third development of the EP’s powers was that it had further “control over its own role in the Union” for it had increased power over the “passage of the statute on the creation of European Parties” . Finally, the last development was on the increase of public interest which in turn would hopefully result on the increase of powers in later treaties. However, this last evolvement was only a minor one. In fact, the whole treaty was marked by minor developments and disappointment to the EP, for not nearly as many powers were pooled to it as had been done in the previous two treaties. Having covered the Treaty of Nice we can now turn to the Lisbon Treaty.

The Lisbon treaty which was ratified in 2009 gave the EU governments more legal independence. Because of the increase in EU executive power, it was necessary to consequentially increase the powers of the EP for more accountability and EU legitimacy. Hence, the Lisbon Treaty has placed the EP “on an equal footing as lawmaker with the Council” , with only a few exceptions. It is now more powerful in terms of lawmaking, political control and budget. Firstly, the EP plays a larger role in the decision making process because of the new policy areas which were extended to the EP under co-decision. These new areas consist of agriculture policy, justice and home affairs. These extensions can easily be underestimated by Member States, however, they are extremely important policy areas. Indeed, agricultural policy “counts for 40% of the total EU budget” . Moreover, not only has there been an extension of policy areas which will be under co-decision, the Treaty of Lisbon includes an “affirmation of the codecision rule between the European parliament and the Council of Ministers as the ordinary legislative procedure” . Secondly, the EP has more political control. This is because under the treaty, the EP’s assent is necessary for all international accords “in fields governed by the ordinary legislative procedure” . Thirdly, and very importantly, the commission’s budget will be reviewed by the parliament and must be approved in its entirety. Because of these extraordinary advancements to the EP many national leaders such as Romano Prodi and even Gordon Brown have applauded the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, Andrew Duff said about the Lisbon treaty:

“Today the European Union is turning an important page in its history. This is the birth of a truly parliamentary Europe…the European Parliament itself gains very significant legislative, budgetary and scrutiny powers”.

The Lisbon treaty greatly increases the powers of the EP, especially more than the Treaty of Nice. However, in order for it to reassemble its national counterparts more closely, many more developments need to be made. For instance, the EP at the present moment cannot initiate legislation directly.

Has the European Parliament come out a consistent ‘winner’ from the treaty negotiations following the Single European Act? Discussing the Maastricht Treaty, treaty of Amsterdam, Treaty of Nice and the Lisbon Treaty has shown that overall there is a tremendous increase in EP powers from the SEA up to the Lisbon treaty. Hence one could definitely characterize the EP as a ‘winner’. However, the EP gained more powers in some treaties than in others. The Treaty of Nice was the treaty with more disappointments for a parliament that “has been something of an underdog fighting for recognition” .One could characterize the treaty as quite anticlimactic for the parliament, as the increase in power didn’t match the prior treaties. What this interestingly demonstrates is that a treaty which aimed to tackle enlargement rather than the extension of power to the EU, barely touched the issue of increasing democratic practices and hence found less need to emancipate the EP. Apart from the Treaty of Nice, the other treaties which were discussed showed great signs of ´consistent´ success for the EP.

UN and the Use of Power

I had an exam the other day and a topic came up about the UN and the use of power on the specific topic of Responsibility to Protect. This topic is very much misunderstood by the common person. Indeed, most people do not know that Humanitarian Intervention is not in actual fact mentioned in the UN charter, yet Inis Claude thinks that indirectly it is one of the major functions of the UN. Hence I thought I would discuss briefly in today's post the UN and the use of power.

When considering the use of force, most people turn to chapter VII of the UN charter. The UN sees the use of force of a state legitimate in two instances:

1) In the case of self defence (chapter 7, article 51)

2) If authorized by the UN security Council

In article 39, it states that the UN will authorize the use of force if it will restore or maintain peace and if the use of force is the best way of achieving peace. Article 41 however states that first sanctions must be applied to a nation, however article 42 explains that if the sanctions are inadequate, then the use of force can be considered. What is good about this system is that a intervention will be more likely to be legitimate because a state will have gone through stages of of diplomacy before the full use of force. This has actually prevented the use of force in various cases, where the diplomatic stage of negotiation and mediation (as discussed in Chapter VI) and where sanctions have come in place. It is also good because in a sense the UN has no self interests, instead it has a collective interest, which according to neoliberal institutionalists such as Robert Keohane suggest is more legitimate. Obviously this last aspect is only one sided, in fact modern marxists would suggest that collective interests aren't being supported, instead, the liberal norms and capitalist ideals are being propagated. They suggest this because in the end of the day it is the P5 members who make final decisions in most cases, and all P5 members share common ideals of Liberalism and capitalism to some extent.

The use of force is also legitimized by resolution 1368 on cases of terrorism. Indeed, it was this resolution which legitimized the invasion of Afghanistan. In short this resolution allows for a state which has been attacked by a non state entity(terrorist association ) to invade another state who is harbouring the non state entity if the host state is unwilling or unable to do anything to prevent further terrorist attacks. This is the resolution which allowed for Americans to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban government because it didn't do anything about the situation. I think that if the act of terrorism is to continue and the number of terrorist attacks is to grow, this is to be a very relevant and used resolution.

For me the most interesting subject about the use of force is Humanitarian Intervention(HI). As I mentioned before, the UN charter doesn't explain when the use of HI should occur, or anything of the sort. HI is legitimized today with article 39, for it reads that the use of force is legitimized in the case of bringing about peace. However, in legal terms HI doesn't make sense if one considers article 41 and 42 because of sanctions. For in a humanitarian intervention sanctions are generally not placed. In fact I cannot think of a case where such provisions happen. However, Constructivists like Alexander Wendt argue that HI is legitimate because its seen as a accepted practice of the UN which is used many a times. Indeed, Dag Hammarkjold, the former Secretary General explained to this affect that HI is present in the UN Charter in a hypothetical Chapter known as "chapter VII 1/2". He referred to this chapter as lying between chapter VI which describes UN traditional methods of achieving peace such as mediation and negotiation, and between chapter VII which as I have explained is the chapter which allows for the use of force. However, even if it is present in the UN charter in the hypothetical sense, it is not present legally. The reason why it hasn't been added into the charter is because of the mere difficulty of UN reform ( a subject I should write about in a post sometime).

Because of the non-existence of a clause or article which explains when HI should be used, there has been growing tensions between state sovereignty and the primary function of the UN to bring about peace and security. Hence in the world summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle was accepted by all the UN members. This principle allows for HI in the case of Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. This principle is contested because there are arguments which suggest it should be used and not used in accordance with the UN charter. Indeed, there are those who think it shouldn't because it again clashes with article 41 and 42. Nick Wheeler on the other hand thinks that the R2P should act in accordance because the R2P is flawed. Wheeler thinks that the threshold for legal humanitarian intervention is too high. It excludes many atrocities such a state which neglects its people or incapable of taking care of a natural disaster, but then again, the threshold is so high to make sure that state sovereignty isn't hindered, unless its very necessary. I think that the UN charter needs to be reformed, not the R2P, this so that the UN charter doesn't clash further with documents and create ambiguity.

This is a very interesting topic, I do accept any views on this topic. Do you think that the UN should have the power to determine when the use of force is legitimate when in the end of the day it will be either America, the Russia, Britain, France or China making such a choice?

An Extension of John Rawls two Principles of Justice

I was questioned by a person on what I had written in the About Me section on the side bar about the following sentence:

" I do feel very against total equality on the grounds of it being a impossible goal and though it may seem like a fair system, it in fact may even be perceived as an unfair system. "

I was hoping that someone would ask me about this because it is a very controversial topic and a very important one as well. So, I promised this person that my next post would answer this question.
So I have written a small “paper” answering this question. However it is important to keep an open mind when you start reading it, because what I may write may come out as making perfect sense and on the other hand, it may cause a clash with someone else’s views.

What I do is look at different views from different thinkers about this subject and try to cooperate my opinions at the end. My basic opinion is truly that total equality is unjust and impossible to achieve. Instead, people should have access to basic resources and social goods and be limited to equality of opportunity (even though in practice not even this is totally achievable). This would in my opinion allow for a equilibrium of fairness between social classes and would not discriminate against neither the people at the top of the ladder nor at the bottom. I think this equilibrium will allow for a practical solution instead of a solution based on ideals which in practice doesn’t allow for a system that works. Hence the title that I have given to my paper is :

To What Extent, if any, is Liberty Compatible with a Just Distribution of Social Goods? How can a just distribution be attainable?

What exactly is a just distribution of goods? Should one explain this with John Rawl’s two principles of justice that Rawl’s argues to be the basis for a just society, or explain just distribution with the contrasting views of prioritarians like Derek Parfit? Justice is a whole other complex debatable matter therefore this essay will define a just distribution in a complete egalitarian manner by classifying ‘just distribution’ as ‘equal distribution’ in the sense of total equality. If an equal distribution is put into practice, various outcomes would be expected as a result; there would be a huge liberty shift in the masses. One would expect the liberty of the worst off to be emancipated while the liberty of the originally better off to be constrained and to a high level stripped away. There is hence a conflicting issue with liberty and this so called just distribution. Is liberty compatible to an egalitarian distribution? The first part of this paper will demonstrate the views of those who think that it is compatible, and the second half will reveal the thoughts of those who think that it isn’t compatible. It will hopefully become apparent that a just distribution in the sense of total egalitarian distribution is not compatible.

Before this debate can be initiated it is important to explain what exactly this total egalitarian distribution requires. Total equality traditionally referred to equality in every sense of the word- from equality of income and liberties to equality of beauty and talent. This soon lost its power for this regime went as far as advocating that if one was more beautiful than the average person, one would have to hide under a mask and if one were talented one would have to restrain from using the talent . However, in turn it also meant that those disabled would have to be given something in return for compensation. Since the world is made up of unique people with different natural endowments and disabilities a veil of ignorance has been advocated where equality ignores such attributes and total equality today refers to total equality of resources and social goods. It is this type of total equality that I shall refer too.

It has been argued by many, like Robert Nozick and John Rawl’s that the majority of the population would benefit from an equal distribution of public goods. Arguments range from the belief that wealth enhances freedom by stripping away limitations caused by the lack of money, to a more radical suggestion that freedom is compatible with an equal distribution even if the freedoms of the rich are diminished because equal distribution aims to support the common good and hence the majority of the human population.

An equal distribution of social goods, like proposed by G. A. Cohen will bring more freedom to the worst off in society. In fact, Cohen argues that unlike other endowments, like beauty and knowledge, “money confers freedom, rather than merely the ability to use it” . This is the view held by other socialists and modern day liberals that believe that in capitalist societies, with unjust distribution of wealth there are many limits to the underprivileged; this lack of freedom that a high percentage of people enjoy can be illustrated with a extreme example of homeless people, who are “increasingly prohibited from performing necessary and essentially human activities, such as eating, sleeping, or urinating.” The theorists hence hold that more equal distribution of social goods “enlarges freedom by empowering individuals and freeing them from the social evils that otherwise blight their lives, such as unemployment, homelessness, poverty´” . Moreover, with more money people are more likely to afford better education and hence not have such a limited career path, which again would increase freedoms. If the majority of the liberty of people is augmented by an equal distribution of wealth, in that sense it is fair to suggest that freedom is compatible to a just distribution of social goods.

It has been argued by personas such as John Mill that the rich could lose many of their accustomed freedoms; however, Theorists like T.H Green and other positive liberalists believe strongly that it is a moral duty to spread the benefits one enjoys with the underprivileged. In fact, philosopher P. Unger stated that for the good of the society as a whole the better off should “give away most of her financially valuable assets, and much of her income, directing the funds to lesson efficiently the serious suffering of others” . Theorist R. Tidor agrees to a high degree with Unger, however Tidor goes further in that he believes that a equal distribution shouldn’t be voluntary, but compulsory. He also believes that even though the freedoms of the rich would be dramatically tempered with, equal distribution would be necessary. He explains that since it’s for the common good of society “mandatory sharing of the team’s benefits and burdens” is necessary to increase the liberties of the majority. This is a more radical view that tries to justify the compatibility of liberty in a society with equal distribution of social goods. Having briefly explained why a egalitarian distribution of goods would be compatible with freedoms, we can now move to cover the other side of the coin.

At this point, it seems as if freedom is to a high extent compatible with a just distribution of social goods. However, equality, and especially total equality is not ‘all good’, not everyone in society benefits from an egalitarian allocation of social goods. In fact, even Robert Nozick who is a supporter of equal distribution considers that “any restriction on a person’s right to private property, such as taxing peoples assets… constitutes an interference with their freedom”. It will become apparent that the best off in society would negatively be affected by a just distribution in that their liberty would be greatly limited and controlled.

One of the biggest aspects of a equal distribution that would dramatically cut back on ones freedom would be the removal of the wealth of the rich to give to the poor. This could lead the rich to go through two possible roots of unfreedom. The first and most evident root that these ex-wealthy populations could be forced into is simply losing all the freedoms they were accustomed to having. In fact Friedrich Hayek held that the removal of resources from the rich would affect the liberty of the rich dramatically while “the freedom off the worst off is no more diminished by their lack of resources than it is by their lack of any other endowments, such as the ability to fly like a bird or to perform miracles” . Hayek used this argument to support that a just distribution is not compatible; by saying in a sense that if (hypothetically and metaphorically speaking) one already knows how to fly like a bird and perform miracles and if one were restricted to such abilities, it would be harshly unjust in contrast to not being able to have such abilities in the first place. The second path that the ex-wealthy could be forced into would be “entering the employment contract, [where] employees agree to give up their freedom to do as they please for the duration of the working day” this would not be necessary if there were no equal distribution of resources, for those economically benefitted “already have enough to enjoy the freedom to not work” or to work with a “significant degree of freedom of choice regarding your career path” . It can be assumed that the privileged economically would be worse off in a society with equal distribution.

Another case in which a just distribution of social goods would limit one’s freedom is with the state intervention and government control of one’s financial condition that would appear simultaneously. This is the view argued by the negative liberalists and the right wing critics of wealth equality that believe that a just distribution of wealth gives “rise to new forms of unfreedom since, by justifying broader state powers, it robs individuals of control over their own economic and social circumstances” . There are various methods that a state might adopt when aiming for a more equal distribution of wealth, a few examples of these methods include; the increasing of taxes of the higher income earners, expropriation of property, and breaking monopolies apart like done to IBM. If these methods would be put into practice, a further conflict of liberty would arise; “if liberty is doing what one pleases, and if people do not please to be made more equal in the respect in question, then asserting a right to equality [would be] incompatible with asserting a right liberty in question” . Even though it seems as if only the better off in society would have their freedom limited by state intervention, the worst off in society would arguably be as well. If there were a just distribution of social goods in community X controlled by its government, nobody would be able to rise economically in society and hence the population would be deprived of the new freedoms more wealth would bring and would also be robbed of the freedom to rise in society, a freedom which without can bring increased de-motivation. Equal distribution would demand higher state control and this would limit the freedom of the whole society, however, noticeably more, the liberty of the wealthy. Various countries have gone through this process of state control, namely Russia, and this “fair” system was regarded a “unfair” by a majority of the population.

It has been clearly suggested that with a just distribution the wealthy would have their freedoms substantially limited while on the other hand the worst off would have their freedoms dramatically enhanced. Here you have a complicated situation where you have the majority of the human population that is underprivileged and would benefit from an egalitarian distribution. However, does that fact justify a government(s) taking utilitarian measures and spreading the wealth? Should like T.H Green has said “from time to time, the freedoms of the few have to be restricted to enhance the freedoms of the many”? Is it fair for those rich who have or not worked their way up the ladder to lose their freedoms and motivation for the good of the majority? Also, very importantly the worst off in society would also be negatively impacted by a total egalitarian system- where increased government control would take over and de-motivation would grow. It could be considered a fact that the majority would in a way or another benefit freedom wise from an equal distribution; however, I personally believe liberty is only compatible to a low extent with a total egalitarian distribution since a huge population from all levels of society would have their freedoms removed in many significant situations.

At this point it probably seems that I have elitist views, and that would make sense considering I support the center right side of the political spectrum- however, my opinion has deeper roots and less-elitist principles than it first meets the eye. If a total equal distribution were attempted in practical terms a few outcomes would be expected- firstly in practical terms, total equality is not achievable. Secondly, it would result in removing private property and probably confiscating money by higher income taxes for the better off in society. This would consequentially result in the desperation of the better off who have lost all their liberties and would bring feelings of unfairness since in many cases people have made their money from working hard. This would also wipe away motivation of the higher classes who have always received freedoms from working for their money. On the other side, it would also remove motivation for the lower classes who now can work all their lives and not rise in society. Hence, work will cease to have a goal for all people, which will henceforth be a in practical solution, for it is enshrined in human nature to need a goals and rewards. In fact, If person x were a architect, and person y a barmaid, and both would be gaining the same income at the end of the day, part of the motivation would be gone, for the want to be upgraded in society is very persistent in human nature. Indeed, it is not simply enough to be doing what one wants as a job. Moreover, there would always be a longing for gaining more than the average freedoms, and know that what you can do and achieve when it comes to liberty is limited at a certain point.

What I would perceive as a just distribution, which would be more practical and fall short from total equality would be a system that that would cooperate John Rawls two principles of justice to a high extent. The first principle requires that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”. This refers to basic social goods such as the right to vote, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and expression, schooling to a degree, among others. What I would add to this is that everyone should also have access to basic resources, such as sanitation, water, shelter etc. This is a dimension that I think is missing from John Rawls principles of Justice. Moreover, the second principle of John Rawls also known as the difference principle touches upon how economic advantages should be distributed. There are two parts of this principle, the first which touches upon taxation and redistribution and the second which propagates equal opportunity. The latter part of the principle is one where John Rawls and I are in agreement, however, we do have conflicting opinions about the first part of the second principle of Justice. I am of the opinion that distribution is important, but that it should up to the high income earner to some extent where some of their money is directed in society. I think that the tax levels should match the functioning of a state and a modest percentage should be taken from the better off in society for distribution. I think this should be modest, because in many cases the government could be corrupt; the money may also go to fund a government project that one doesn’t agree with; and one may work very hard for their money and have to give more than 50% away as done in Belgium. I think that one should feel obliged to distribute their money if they are in a good economic position to organizations like a church, or a organization that helps the worst off in society, or even to the government. However, I think this should be a choice, for in practical terms, if one has the freedom to donate rather than having to give x amount of money to the government without choice, one is more likely to distribute goods and feel like their freedoms haven’t been limited.

Moreover, when it comes to equality of opportunity, this is a principle which should be promoted so that it increasingly works, for in my opinion this is much more attainable than total equality. This principle, in simple words refers to any one person with the same qualifications and talents should have the same chance to get a job regardless of their sex, birth, race and disabilities. So, someone from a lower class, which happens to be a woman, with good qualifications but from a public school, who also happens to be disabled, but able to do the work required and from a African or Asian background, would have the same chance at securing a job as a white male from a rich background who has the same qualifications, but from a private schooling. This may also sound impossible, however it is much more attainable than total equality, and it seems like a fairer system. A variable that I would add to the equality of opportunity principle is that for it to work practically and be more easily achievable, it should apply to regions or a nation states. What I mean by this is that equality of opportunity is not attainable at the world stage level, because one cannot compare a developed state like Norway to a less developed developing state such as Bangladesh- this is because citizens of both nation states will never have the same equalities of opportunity, as in the same level of public education for instance.

Overall, I think it comes down to practicalities and what truly works- a system of total equality would be impossible in this western capitalist world that we live in, for it would need us to live in a Marxist no social class system which at this point realistically would be impossible achieve. Even a hundred years ago when there might have been a greater chance for total equality it didn’t develop, because perhaps human nature doesn’t allow for that kind of system. One is always going to feel greed, envy and other negative sentiments which disintegrate any chances for such a system. In my proposal for a just system of distribution it places practicality before unattainable ideals.