Living by the Communitarian principle is possible
12 October 2008
1. Libertarian beliefs anti-government, anticentralized control, equal distribution of rights, process over produce/consequence, says you won’t find a real Libertarian in Washington D.C. because they don’t want to work with the government. Is centered on individual rights, talks of Amarta Sen criticism, see development as “freedom”, freedom as means and end to development, access-not everyone starts at the same point.
2. Utilitarian (China) distributional system is moral as long as it increases total happiness for the group (not individuals) “we grow the pie; someone else cuts it”, innovation-development geared towards wealth-creation. Science & Technology for economic growth-how the benefits are distributed (unequal distribution is the other areas problem, believe in “trickle down” or “the rising tide that lifts all boats” effect, believes economic growth at nationalo level almost always helps the poor.
3. Contractarian: negotiation:, John Rawls criticism of utilitarianism: contract theory-a moral system of distribution is one that rational individuals would agree to, but one’s starting point is affluent, a twist: moral system where individuals would agree to be behind a “veil of ignorance” to make sure race & gender could not be used for basis of discrimination, anti-utilitarian: unfair distrubution, justice as fairness for the least advantaged, distinctly different than dominant paradigh, currently science/tech focusese on the diseases of the affluent (cardiovascular, obesity) rather than those of poverty (malaria, tuberculosis) which can be quickly cured. Science/tech focuses on telecommunication or business market phone/email rather than basic communication for villages, the poor are more likely to bear the environmental costs of production and innovation. U.S. ships toxic wastes to dump where poor live, science/tech for the poor is still marginal, this beliefe is more acceptable, not ‘the radical one’
4. COMMUNITARIAN (the radical theory, but it IS possible)
Cannot embrace the permanently growing gap between rich and poor which the Rawlsian contract theory permits, inequality produces a worse outcome for everyone-not just for the poor, social conflict-rate of crimes is a result of inequality which affects the health of the rich-everyone should be wanting less inequality, poverty-reduction, not wealth-creation or economic growth is the most important for creating less inequality, how innovation is done is as important as what innovation focuses on; participatory, capacity-building, public research, private sector stimulation all goes together, involves the largest number of people, the broadest range of skill, experts and non-experts together to spread and understand the knowledge, public deliberation process to become informed, public research should align research and innovation, research community should go public so community to become better informed, inform private sector & give them incentitives so they see themselves getting economic benefits taking care of the public, not just the rich, EU is doing this-getting stronger. The U.S. is using the utilitarian plan right now, not free market, government give unequal treatment to special interests, actually what is happening now is actually worse thatn utilitarianism-the deregulation of markets, contracts between government & certain people, China is more utilitarian-government is working toward economic growth. Communitarian failed in Russia-has its own problems-we need to be more communitarian-we are not starting from scratch-certain interventions should be done, example nano-technology may need more intervention. We have to see we are growing inequality-we won’t make a difference until we see that happening, it’s all about the power, social policies must regulate.
