Res Publica

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 33–51 | Cite as

Raising Revenue for Persons with Disabilities

Article
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

Whereas right-libertarians do not think that it is a requirement of justice that we raise revenues for persons with disabilities, both left-libertarians and liberal egalitarians think that there is such a requirement. An issue remains for the latter two theorists—how ought we to raise this revenue? Liberal egalitarians typically endorse either universal taxation or taxation of the wealthy. Left-libertarians, on the other hand, cannot so easily appeal to the methods of universal taxation and taxation of the wealthy, as they are illegitimately coercive. One such method left open to the left-libertarian is one proposed by Michael Otsuka. He argues that both left-libertarians and liberal egalitarians should find the method of taxation of the unjust to be a reasonably strong way of raising revenue. In this paper, I point out problems with Otsuka’s argument, as well as directly criticize the method of taxation of the unjust.

Keywords

Alternative methods to universal taxation Charity Left-libertarianism Liberal egalitarianism Michael Otsuka Persons with disabilities Right-libertarianism Taxation of the unjust Taxation of the wealthy Universal taxation 

References

  1. Feinberg, Joel. 1965. The expressive function of punishment. Monist 49: 397–423.Google Scholar
  2. Kymlicka, Will. 2000. Property rights and the self-ownership argument. In Left-libertarianism and its critics, ed. Peter. Vallentyne, and Hillel. Steiner, 295–321. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  3. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Otsuka, Michael. 2003. Libertarianism without inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Quinn, Warren. 1985. The right to threaten and the right to punish. Philosophy and Public Affairs 14: 327–373.Google Scholar
  6. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations