Un mistero
In In Defense of Openness, Bas and I wonder why so much of the global justice literature defends the opposite conclusions of development economics....It’s not that philosophers read, say, Acemoglu and Robinson but find their work flawed; they seem simply to be unaware of it....
L argomento analizzato
Hassoun’s argument can be summarized as follows:
1. Coercive institutions must be legitimate.
2. For a coercive institution to be legitimate, it must ensure that its subjects secure sufficient autonomy to autonomously consent to, or dissent from, its rules.
3. Everyone, to secure this autonomy, must secure some food and water, and most require some shelter, education, health care, social support, and emotional goods.
4. There are many coercive international institutions.
5. So, these institutions must ensure that their subjects secure food, water, and whatever else they need for sufficient autonomy.
Problemi con 2
Suppose that, for whatever reason, Bob is not sufficiently autonomous. Say, he lacks the external resources Hassoun claims one needs to be autonomous. Now, suppose non-autonomous Bob turns violent, attempts to harm our children, and the only way to stop him is to use coercion (that is, violence). It seems obvious that we can coerce Bob to defend our children... The fact that Bob is non-autonomous can make a difference, of course. For example, if Bob doesn’t count as autonomous, then this may mean that he is less than fully blameworthy for his actions.
Altro problema
Robert Mugabe oppresses his subjects and keeps many of them desperately poor. Suppose the WTO works out a deal with Mugabe, using their carrots and sticks, to get him to lower trade barriers a bit. And suppose that this helps to make the poorest Zimbabweans a little better off, but not well off enough to qualify as “sufficiently autonomous” in Hassoun’s theory. By Hassoun’s account, the WTO’s actions would remain illegitimate ...
Il problema
The problem, quite simply, is that the justification of coercion does not always require consent....
Hassoun’s Argument for Global Redistribution http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2018/09/hassouns-argument-for-global-redistribution/
FILOSOFI ED ECONOMISTI
Perché sull’aiuto ai poveri filosofi ed economisti sembrano suggerire soluzioni opposte= I primi non leggono nemmeno i secondi, non obiettano, fanno semplicemente come non ci fossero.
Per il filosofo le “regole” hanno senso solo per persone autonome (persone a cui viene garantito riparo, istruzione, assistenza sanitaria, sostegno sociale eccetera. I poveri del mondo non sono autonomi e quindi, per il filosofo, vanno "riparati" come fossero macchine. Noi occidente ricco dobbiamo procedere alle opportune riparazioni.
La premessa non sembra solidissima: se un tale assalta i nostri figli noi verifichiamo se è “autonomo” prima di bloccarlo facendogli rispettare le regole? Mi sembra di no. D’altro canto nemmeno puo’ fornire vitto e alloggio non legittima certo la schiavitù!
