Skip to main content
Log in

Rawls and Economic Liberties

  • Published:
Res Publica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is widespread agreement among political philosophers that there is a core set of civil and political liberties that ought to be given special protections by any state. In contrast, there is significant disagreement about whether (and which) economic liberties deserve the same level of protection and priority. To what extent should freedom in economic activities be protected by and from the government? To what extent is it justifiable for government to interfere with economic activities for the sake of equalizing opportunities and protecting the welfare of society’s vulnerable? John Rawls famously held that only a narrow range of economic liberties are basic liberties deserving special protections, though he never offered a full defense of that claim. In Free Market Fairness John Tomasi argued against Rawls, claiming it follows from Rawls’s own assumptions that we ought to protect a broad range of economic liberties as basic liberties. This paper attempts to provide the missing argument in favor of Rawls’s position in this debate and against Tomasi’s. First, I argue for a novel interpretation of Rawls’s criterion for basic liberties. Second, I use that interpretation to argue that Rawls was correct and consistent to exclude contract rights and productive property rights from the scheme of basic liberties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Jessica Flanigan, “All Liberty is Basic” Res Publica (2018), pp. 455–474. To claim that all liberty is basic is not to claim that one can protect all liberties without them conflicting with each other. One would still need a system to adjudicate which liberty gets priority when liberties conflict. Rather, to claim that all liberty is basic is only to say that liberty concerns should always take priority over any other concern of justice, such as equality of opportunity or fair distribution.

  2. There are some telling passages where Rawls very clearly acknowledges that who we are and what we desire is very much a product of our relations in society (Rawls 2007, pp. 366–367, 2005, p. 41).

  3. It is worth acknowledging that some people with significant intellectual disabilities may have limited capacity to form and revise a conception of their own good and will depend on other people to help them identify their own good and pursue it. In this case, it seems clear that our obligations are to do our best to identify what is good for that person and to put in place the supports needed to help them pursue that good. The truth is that dependence on others in these matters is always present and differs among us only in degree. All of us are influenced by others in our social context in the development of our conception of the good life and need the support of others in our pursuit of that good.

  4. I should acknowledge that Rawls himself did not adequately address issues of discrimination against people with disabilities. While he mostly ignored the issue in his work, where he did mention it, his analysis was certainly inadequate. That said, I think his basic assumptions (as discussed above) should lead us to the conclusion that we ought to protect people with disabilities from discrimination.

  5. I have also not addressed the important question of environmental regulations limiting economic liberties. Certainly a concern that all citizens are able to develop, revise and pursue a reasonable conception of the good provides strong reasons to limit economic liberty for the sake of environmental protection. But that only offers us anthropocentric reasons for protecting the natural environment. I am not satisfied with that. Just as we have political obligations to people who are not citizens of our country, I believe we also have political obligations to nonhumans with whom we share this land but who are not citizens. That is, I believe that our human political structures cannot justly only take humans into account. However, I leave the examination of that question for another paper where these non-anthropocentric reasons can be explored more fully.

References

  • Arnold, S. 2013. Right-wing Rawlsianism: A critique. Journal of Political Philosophy 21(4): 382–404.

  • Arnold, S. 2018. Putting liberty in its place: High liberalism without the liberalism. European Journal of Philosophy 26(1): 213–237.

  • Brennan, Jason. 2020. Against the moral powers test of basic liberty. European Journal of Philosophy 28: 492–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12497.

  • Cass, Devon. 2021. The priority of liberty: An argument from social equality. Law and Philosophy 40: 129–161.

  • Costa, Victoria. 2022. Political liberty. In John Rawls and the common good, ed. Robert Luppi. 140–160. New York: Routledge.

  • Flanigan, Jessica. 2018. All liberty is basic. Res Publica 24: 455–474.

  • Freeman, Samuel. 2012. Can economic liberties be basic liberties? Symposium on free market fairness, liberty, bleeding heart libertarians. https://bleedingheartliberatarians.com/2012/06/can-economic-liberties-be-basic-liberties/. Accessed 27 July 2023.

  • McLeod, Stephen K., and Attila, Tanyi 2023. The basic liberties: An essay on analytical specification. European Journal of Political Theory 22 (3): 465–486.

  • Melenovsky, C. M., Justin Bernstein. 2015. Why free market rights are not basic liberties. The Journal of Value Inquiry 49: 47–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melenovsky, C. M. 2017. The implicit argument for the basic liberties. Res Publica 24: 433–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quillian, Lincoln, Devah Pager, Arnfinn H. Midboen, and Ole Hexel. 2017. Hiring discrimination against Black Americans hasn’t declined in 25 years. Harvard Business Review, hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-americans-hasn’t-declined-in-25-years. Accessed 27 July 2023.

  • Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as fairness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 2005. Political liberalism (expanded edition). New York: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 2007. Lectures on the history of moral philosophy. Ed. Barbara Herman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasi, John. 2012. Free market fairness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Platz, Jeppe. 2013. Are economic liberties basic rights? Politics, Philosophy, & Economics 13 (1): 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X13483466.

  • von Platz, Jeppe. 2020. Rawls’s underestimation of the importance of economic agency and economic rights. In John Rawls: Debating the major questions, ed. John Mandle, and Sarah Roberts-Cady. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jon Mandle, Justin McBrayer, Dugald Owen, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The three objections that I address at the end of the paper are all derived from the thoughtful objections of the anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Roberts-Cady.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roberts-Cady, S. Rawls and Economic Liberties. Res Publica (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-024-09668-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-024-09668-w

Keywords

Navigation