Skip to main content

Baseline "Problems"

In his discussion Locke's Proviso, Robert Nozick articulates some worries about interpreting the  proviso as requiring the maintenance of some baseline (Nozick Anarchy, State and Utopia Part II Ch 7 Section 1). In particular, Nozick is worried about how to cash out Locke's proviso against appropriation; an appropriation is unjustified if there is not “enough and as good” left for others. If the proviso is understood as protecting agents from falling below a certain baseline, then we must confront the problem of establishing what that baseline is. Nozick, and those who follow his interpretation of Locke, abandons the baseline conception and instead adopts a Pareto-Optimal view of the Proviso. Namely, a taking is unjustified when an agent's current situation is worsened, where worsened must be evaluated in terms of opportunities created and lost, etc.

Without getting into the reasons I disagree with this interpretation of Locke's proviso, I've always been bothered the skepticism about baselines. I just don't see why the baseline needs to be given to us in the theory. It seems to make just as much sense to say that “the baseline” is a set of conditions deemed minimally tolerable. As such, the baseline will change as the affluence of the society changes. Consider current debates over socialized health care in the United States. A century ago, the most affluent nations in the world did not provide health care for anyone. After the devastation of two world wars, European nations dealt with rebuilding by socializing their economies, including health care. Now, citizens used to socialized health care consider it a right, something that they would be offended at losing. That attitude has crept into the United States, and citizens justifiably wonder why it's not possible here when it seems to work well enough over there. Of course other citizens feel differently, but many reasons for disagreement are financial in nature. In other words, they amount to worries about whether or not such a system is economically feasible. It must be feasible if it's done elsewhere and those economies are no more in collapse than ours. As the calls for health care get louder and louder, doesn't it make sense to say that the baseline has changed? The Founding Fathers might never have conceived of such a thing, but we might come to think it necessary for the continuation of our society.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 1: Utilitarianism

There is no way this tutorial series would be complete without some discussion of justifications for intellectual property. While not necessarily a matter of law, some knowledge of the philosophical foundations will provide a better sense of the values at stake in intellectual property debates. Notice, for instance, that the tutorials on fair use were punctuated with appeals to values, social goods, and individual rights. Without an understanding of the moral and political framework against which the law stands, one can very easily find oneself in a stalemate, with one value pitted against another and no way of deciding which should prevail. To understand the jurisprudence around intellectual property rights, one has to have some idea of the justifying theories to which attorneys and judges appeal in their arguments and decisions. So, without further ado, let's get to the tutorial.
There are three main ways of justifying intellectual property rights: the Utilitarian theory, the Lab…

Fair Use Part 2: Subtleties

Now that you've had the time to digest the basics of fair use, it's time to talk about some common misunderstandings and problems that arise with regard to this aspect of copyright law. As you might have noticed from last time, fair use a complex issue, one in which various concerns must be weighed with no guiding standard as to how much impact each factor should have. Even more problematically, US courts have stayed away from fair use cases for the most part. Very few actually reach a judge, and only four fair use cases have been heard by the Supreme Court. As such, there is very little jurisprudence to clarify the law. As such, fair use is a ripe subject for confusion and debate. Let's begin with the most crucial clarification.
Fair Use is not a right While one might hear talk about “fair use rights,” there really is no such thing. The National Information Infrastructure White Paper on Intellectual Property (released Sept 1995; for more information see: http://www.uspto.g…

History and Identity

Yesterday the European Court of Justice issued an important ruling that has the tech policy world buzzing about privacy, search engines and personal history. In short, the court ruled that the EU Data Protection Directive gives a person the right to demand that old information be purged from search results. The particular case involves an attorney seeking removal of links to announcements about a real-estate auction connected with a debt settlement in 1998. While the ECJ made a number of interesting moves in the case (including a welcome argument that the distinction between data processors and data controllers does not make as much sense today as it did in 1995 when the Directive went into effect), the big consequence everyone is talking is the right to be forgotten.

The long memory of the Internet is a feature it's hard not to love and fear at the same time. Whether you have something to hide or not, if it's on the Internet, it stays on the Internet (most of the time, at lea…