Social State

Discussion

Justice and the Social State

(On the Differences between Market Liberalism and Social Liberalism)

From the reading notes of Michel Bauwens, 2007. Unfortunately, I cannot locate the author nor the source but the topic is interesting by itself:

The different forms of the social state are founded on different moral visions regarding social justice: they answer the question: what should citizens do for each other.

The social state made assistance to the needy obligatory, as compared to the premodern voluntary charity. Such assistance is framed as a right, but dependent on conditions, which set a guaranteed minimum. These conditions not only concern material poverty, but also human dignity. The social state therefore also insures self-esteem. An additional step is preventive: rather than helping the poor, the state should put in place systems which prevent its emergence.

Liberal doctrine agrees that the state should protect the 'negative liberties' of the citizens, and protect them from arbitrary power. But there is disagreement as to what extent the conditions of such liberties should be nurtured. Thus the contrast between market liberalism and social liberalism.

Market liberalism aims to make everyone fit for an autonomous life in the market, and is opposed to redistributive justice, as a violation of existing property. This approach is problematic for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Social liberalism wants to insure that the conditions of liberty as such, i.e. that everyone can use their freedoms equally. The approach is criticized for being slient on rights that are not related to freed, but to the equality of justice.

Thus it is important to integrate the egalitarian principle. But the principle is not absolute, and requires a respect for difference. Some persons may need more than others. Egalitarian liberalism aims to create the equality of conditions, but accepts unequal treatment which results from personal choices. Non-deserved handicaps need to be compensated however.

Initiating a Right to Income

J.L. Ferry:

The 'passive' social state could no longer respond to the illimited demands for redistribution. Hence, 2 answers emerge as a response to the crisis:

1) the neoliberal 'conservative revolution', i.e. the privatization of social insurance

2) the neo-socialist 'workfare' response, which is conditioned on a active response from the recipients, but offer help in achieving it

Both approaches converge by their appeal to strengthen the conditionality of assistance.

But the two visions also diverge:

- a focus on the flexibilization towards the global market

- a belief in the possibility in full employment.

But in the context of delocalization and automatization, these are illusions.

Ferry proposes to transform 'ex post' redistribution, in a 'ex ante' securitization of autonomy.

There are two types of justification for such a unconditional income:

- the moral justification: a dignified existence cannot be dependent on a imperfect marketplace

- from the point of view of the good life: to provide for a stabilized moral life.

The social income must follow these principles:

1) primary 2) unconditional 3) universal 4) substantial 5) irrevocable