Let's go back to that initial natural condition, the so-called "circumstance of justice", called 'moderate scarcity'. Out of that certain actions become necessary and others possible. Certain actions are necessary and possible. That is the space of justice.
The coming oil crisis promises to deliver us to this space and beyond. Deep questions arise when we consider the catastrophe that is coming our way. An economic recession is, unless MAJOR changes are made, extremely likely. That recession will extend outward into a depression. Anyway, that's what it looks like.
Now, by Rawls' own methodology, we are to imagine that we could end up playing the part of any possible actor within the territory of the United States once the veil is lifted, and in the space of this possibility we ask ourselves, "what conception of justice (a conception that significantly shapes the basic structure of society), would I be prepared to accept?"
Let's add not just Hume's natural conditions of humanity (as Rawls did in Theory), but add ethnic and religious pluralism, sprawl, Suburbia, systemic collapse of infrastructure, oil shortages and transportation price hikes, recession and depression, global meltdown of financial solvency and other features of the oil peak scenario.
Rawls'
Theory of Justice has two parts
First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.
Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
This admirable theory of justice reiterates the Kantian principle of liberty in its first part and echoes Mill. But, look, in the second part. "Social and economic inequalities are
to be arranged so that they are...." (
emphasis mine) Who is doing the 'arranging' here? In the oil peak scenario, the collapse will not be "arranged", but imposed. Okay, we can redact the line: are to be arranged
where possible....
I think the fundamental question of distributive theories of justice is often cast in the contours of a utopia of only moderate scarcity. A distributive theory of justice cast in the contours of a concrete society with an oil addiction to the tune of 25 million barrels a day where supplies are ever increasingly scaled back is an altogether different question. Here distributive justice will consist less in distributing goods than it will consist in fairly distributing their absence, allocating losses.
The question could be raised, "where shall we allocate our losses?" The most primitive question is going to be which basic liberties will be truncated and for whom. So, just to be clear, we have accepted the model of peak oil AND we are conceiving of just governmental policies regulated by Rawls' two principles.
Now enter George Bush and the push to privatize social security. Against a background of deepening recessions (and they are likely), we askwhether it is just to "privatize" social security accounts. If that is done, the collapse of the American economy will be handed to its troubled masses in the form of paper receipts to an empire that is steadily decreasing in value. The optimistic projections of a modest 5 or even 10 percent rate of return on the accounts has to be considered against the likelihood of a recession caused by peak oil. "Privatization" will burden the less fortunate in society by giving them false security in a shaky economic future. Should their accounts dry up, they will have nothing.
The question of allocating losses must take into consideration social inequalities. The pain felt by the cinching of the economy by the working and middle classes is much greater in real goods than the pain felt by the more fortunate in society. The losses would, therefore, have to come out of the wealthiest members of society up to that point at which it would, necessarily, begin to erode what the less fortunate have. That's the maximin reasoning of Rawls.
It could be argued that privatization will direct new capital flows towards sustainable and progressive industries--industries that will release us from the unsustainable path we are currently on. That would only work provided that a robust regulations of corporate charters were drawn up, constraining companies to both fair free trade practices consistent with a rational energy policy and environmental regulations. (This idea came from Suzuki at a conference in New York in 1999 or 2000).
In the catastrophe scenario--and peak oil may play out differently--infrastructure changes were not made fast enough to offset the crisis. Railways were not developed along the grid of more intelligent local supply chains. No effort was expended to move
en masse to electric cars. So, in this scenario, companies that have no cushion would possibly go under. This would mean a lot of major corporations, but mainly small businesses would suffer. It would come out of their employees and consumers. The disproportionate burden would be put upon , trickle down style, the middle and lower classes of the society. This catastrophe could only be reasonably offset by the development of a transportation and energy mandate sent full force by the people having been prepped by a national dialogue.
Either our society owns up to its immediate future or it finds itself amidst a very difficult scenario in which a culture of middle class security--a culture that has been pervasive throughout the civil institutions and associations of our society--breaks apart under the shortage of oil.
Questions to be asked:
What obligations does justice put our society under?
Is Justice realistic?
Is there an alternative?
Where should the money be spent? Renewables and sustainable forms of energy.
