PROPERTY-OWNING DEMOCRACY
A suitable alternative for contemporary capitalism against the
backdrop of justice as fairness and negative freedom.
Tana Nguyen 10092145 Bui.Nguyen@student.uva.nl
Alternatives to Capitalism: Models of Future Society
Supervisor: Paul Raekstad Second reader: Enzo Rossi
June 2017
2 Table of contents INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objective 3 1.2 Outline 5 METHODOLOGY 2.1.1 Ideal theory 7 2.1.2 A realist critique 10 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1.1 Justice as fairness 12
3.1.2 Basic structure of society 13
3.2 Negative liberty 15
3.3 Limitations of capitalism 18
PROPERTY-OWNING DEMOCRACY
4.1.1 Property-owning democracy as an ideal 22
4.1.2 Meade: egalitarian vision 23
4.1.3 Rawls: two principles of justice 27
4.2.1 Market mechanism 30
4.2.2 Wage labour rate 32
4.2.3 Consideration towards workplace democracy 33
4.3.1 Distributive equality 36
4.3.2 Government policy 37
4.3.3 The role of education 49
4.3.4 Progressive taxation 41
4.3.5 Welfare rights 43
LIMITATIONS OF PROPERTY-OWNING DEMOCRACY
5.1.1 Objection: power & ideology 46
5.1.2 Response 48
CONCLUSION
6.1 Major findings 50
6.2 Recommendation for future research 53
3 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
Political theory is based on arguments about competing principles that govern society. One of the important questions in political theory is related to the conception of justice. The next important question regards the kinds of social affairs we aim for in human cooperation (Cohen 2011:227). In today’s world, contemporary capitalism has established itself as a political system through its economic expansion across the developed and developing world. Through the process of industrialization, it has led the market economy towards a goal of limitless capital expansion and the maximization of profit. Capitalism came along with a social ideal, which was also referred to as the ‘modernization’ process, the belief that economic development will improve people’s living standards all over the world (Fraser 2009:100).
Despite promises of economic and social progress, capitalism failed to realize these ideals for everyone. It came with many disadvantages such as an unequal distribution of property and capital amongst citizens and resulted in political and social inequalities. It placed the majority of property-rights and the ownership of capital in the hands of a wealthy minority, resulting in unequal relations of power in society (Wagner 2011:14). Capitalism has not shaken the unfair relations of domination between people in which people’s negative
freedom is severely obstructed by others, through hierarchal structures that enables the one’s
in charge of the production process to exert control over others. Under the circumstances of political, social and economic injustice present in capitalist societies, I argue that property-owning democracy (POD)1 can be considered as a suitable alternative economic system for capitalism. With suitable I refer to certain conditions in POD that can serve as an adequate solution to the great socio-economic inequalities in capitalism. I consider two conditions that would greatly progress socio-economic justice in society, these are the conceptions of justice
as fairness and negative freedom.
John Rawls (1999) incorporated the conception of justice as fairness for the first time in his work “A theory of justice”. He considered POD as a suitable economic system to realize his two principles of justice. The first principle states that people should have the
4 same claim to equal basic liberties. The second principle states that social and economic inequalities are allowed under conditions of equality of opportunity and in compliance with
the difference principle (Rawls 2001:43). According to Rawls, justice as fairness would
regulate relations in society by determining a suitable balance between competing claims in a fair and just way. A public sense of justice would establish a civic bond between people thus limiting those desires to pursue individualistic ends which disadvantage society as a whole. The political goal being the establishment of a well-ordered and peaceful society and a proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of human cooperation (Rawls 1999:5). A principle aiming to remove the unfair structures inherent in capitalism. In the thesis I question whether POD fulfils the standards of equality as defined within justice as fairness and negative
freedom. As economic conditions play an important role in an individual's political and social
development, it is on this platform of fairness that an economic system should be built providing individuals with equal chances from the beginning of their lives.
The second conception deployed throughout the thesis is negative freedom, it entails that freedom is not simply ensured by being unobstructed in doing what you want to do by other, but also concerns the absence of obstacles to possible choices and activities (Pettit 2011:698). Negative freedom does not allow an unlimited exercise of freedom, but
limitations are made justified in order to protect competing important political values such as
justice and equality. The most telling examples are those restrictions on people’s negative freedom ensuring others of their freedom (Berlin 1969:123). Restrictions on a person’s negative freedom can made justified, for example if the exercise of their freedom obstructs
others in their negative freedom. People’s negative freedom are severely violated in
contemporary capitalist systems due to great socio-economic inequalities which have resulted in unequal power relations in society. POD has to meet the conditions of negative freedom to serve as a suitable alternative for contemporary capitalist systems. Both the principles of
justice as fairness and negative freedom have to reach a satisfying equilibrium in POD. The
concrete interpretation of the required balance is subjected to political deliberation and depends on the specific circumstances (Rawls 1999:248).
In contemporary capitalism the principles of justice as fairness and negative freedom are critically threatened. Can POD restore the appropriate balance between these two
principles and serve as a suitable alternative economic system for future implementation? POD’s main objective is reaching distributive equality for a greater number of people in society through a more equal allocation of the available resources. Along with the belief that a more egalitarian distribution of property and capital will eventually contribute to political
5 and social equality between people. This is achieved by the implementation of government policy to regulate a sufficient amount of distributional justice, which requires a certain degree of government control and intervention in people’s negative freedom. Along with
distributional justice POD’s objective is to maintain a market economy to empower people with economic independence and freedom, giving them the ability to provide for their own means of survival. The freedom to make their own economic decisions, without being dependent on other, which contributes to their overall sense of negative freedom.
1.2 Outline
I will start with a brief elaboration on the methodology employed throughout the thesis. This will clarify the methodological viewpoint that functions as a common thread throughout the thesis, as a specific way of looking at the world and will help the reader understand my process of thoughts The main methodological perspective being employed is
ideal theory. Ideal theory attempts to design principles of justice to regulate society through
a more systematic understanding of the world around us (Valentini 2012:658). It guides our thoughts and actions towards a more defined direction, however, it does not specify which actions to take in reaching the end goal (Robeyns 2008:349). Interestingly enough, political realism operates on a totally different dimension by providing more practical solutions to more practical questions (Thomas 2015:8). I will also provide a political realist critique on the limitations of ideal theory as an methodology. A realist perspective will help in more wholly understanding POD, as humans act differently in the given circumstances, it takes alternative possibilities and consequences into consideration in approaching the end goal (Geuss 2008:9).
Following this will be a brief historical introduction providing an insight into POD’s development as an economic system, with a claim on the ownership of property to achieve distributive justice in society. I will explain the efficiency and distributional effects of a market economy in POD. Market mechanism in POD have to be combined with government regulation to reach a sufficient degree of distributive justice such as the regulation of the wage labour rate in the market system. I will further elaborate on POD’s concern towards distributive justice and the central role of the government in implementing policies including a system of progressive taxation, education reform and welfare rights. Finally, I will respond to objections made against POD relating to unequal relations of power similar to capitalist systems. I will argue that POD is a suitable alternative system to replace contemporary capitalist systems, due to its ability to satisfy the conceptions of justice as fairness and
6
negative freedom, but also address a number of critiques that have been raised against POD,
in particular, those relating to the scope of distributive justice in balance with other political liberties. For example, how can government intervention be justified and what are the limitations of a market economy in relation to the principles of justice as fairness and
negative freedom? As a potentially suitable economic system, POD can only be further
improved by properly addressing its critiques and limitations and offering possible solutions for the future. In concluding remarks, I will comment on improvements that can be made to further optimize POD as a suitable economic system.
7 METHODOLOGY
2.1.1 Ideal theory
The methodology employed throughout the thesis is important to determine its theoretical perspective. It is the process of thought that runs like a common thread throughout the thesis and determines its structure of thought. The methodological perspective here within derives from ideal theory, explained by Gerald Cohen (2008) as the belief in metaphysical presuppositions concerning the existence of eternal principles of justice that are valid across all possible worlds. However, rather than taking the metaphysical perspective, I treat ideal theory closer to the explanation provided by John Rawls (1999), that is modestly employing principles of justice for nearby worlds. The Rawlsian view has a goal of designing relevant and relatable principles for the inhabitants of a certain society and, at its furthest, reaches societies with similar circumstances.
Ideal theory does not necessarily convey an eternal truth, instead it simply consists of an attempt to provide a systematic and reasonable judgment of our surrounding world
(Valentini 2012:658). It serves as a guideline by formulating principles which can be adopted and it is capable of developing theories about the extent of the world we are living in with respect to a social ideal. As a guiding theory it determines the structure of society,
influencing our thoughts, and eventually shapes the implementation of practice towards a united goal. Ideal theory is capable of achieving long term goals, suitable to implement institutional reform, and bring about institutional change by providing a clear objective to follow. It acts as a reference to mirror a specific problem and provides adequate solutions for how things can be done differently (ibid:660). It has the ability to guide individual action towards a broader normative goal and implement action towards change. Ideal theory answers questions regarding what counts as permissible, what counts as success and which actions can fulfil the requirements? Therefore, John Simmons (2010) argues that ideal theory should at least in part influence our choices for justice-improvements (ibid:661).
Through the process of analysing POD as a suitable alternative economic system we will be confronted with questions of normative value and these questions will guide our decisions and actions towards a certain goal. Humans go through a process of evaluative contemplating, before implementing any form of concrete activity. Questioning the intention of our actions, where they eventually lead and what can be gained. Humans don’t engage in
8 activities without a sense of direction in our thinking, even if the processing of our thoughts only consist of a few seconds of pondering and contemplating. Unfortunately, the ability to evaluate our thoughts towards concrete action does not always lead to desirable outcomes. Humans can uphold unethical or unjustified values while still engaging in a certain activity with the pre-existence of a set of thoughts. This underlines questions about the scope of justice (for example regarding the balance between equality and freedom) and how we structure society. Normative questions in ideal theory encourage us to re-think our ideals, those values we recognize as important and factors we should take in to consideration.
Furthermore, concepts are an analytical tool used in ideal theory to help us think more clearly about our thought processes. Concepts are the descriptive, analytic, normative and aspirational elements in ideal theory. They clarify the aim of a theory, determine its objective and define what actions to take next. For example, they can help us understand whether a certain theory is justified against competing or contradictory theories. Making use of conceptual tools is a precondition in ideal theory in order to achieve a clearer and fuller understanding of what a problem is in the first place (Geuss 2005:46). Concepts are also an imaginative tool in ideal theory helping us see a clearer picture of the end-goal by structuring our thoughts and by answering pre-conditional questions. As a clear understanding of the concepts in ideal theory will make our argument stronger, we have to next determine which concepts are important and thoroughly explain why they are valued concepts.
Rawls used ideal theory to work out principles in how to govern a society and thus answer questions of justice. Rawls considered ideal theory as requiring a strict notion of compliance as opposed to partial compliance.2 This implies that ideal theory should be used under reasonable, realistic and favourable circumstances (Rawls 2001:19). He did not deny the relevance of a partial compliance theory, however, for the clarity of his argument he chose not to elaborate on it in his work. Rawls acknowledges the importance of partial compliance in ideal theory, in which he states that partial compliance deals with problems that are pressing and urgent in everyday life (Rawls 1999:8). These are circumstances in which strict compliance doesn’t have a direct solution as it is best applied in favourable conditions. Thus, to uphold a reasonable conception of justice, partial compliance is in some cases justified for more difficult and pressing problems arising in non-favourable conditions (ibid:53).
9 In my interpretation, ideal theory will be considered under partial compliance and include the minimal principles of justice necessary for a just society. It does not cover every aspect of life, but aims to focus on those basic principles required for a just society. Next to that, partial compliance does not imply that ideal theory has to be applied in every domain of society. Different sets of principles can be applied in different domains, such as in the
domains of gender or in a geopolitical sense, for example within the borders of the nation-state. Ideal theory can restrict itself to the domain of political justice, dealing with political institutions and agents by, for example, excluding questions related to the domains of religious matters or family life (Robeyns 2008:344).
In contrast with Rawls definition of strict ideal theory, I will use partial ideal theory and take in to account deviations that might occur in society when dealing with humans and their different circumstances. As has already been noted, always complying to the principles of justice does not always lead to a just society. Justice in some cases requires exceptions to the rule. For example, one only needs to imagine situations in which people are reasonably not at fault or are unable to control the situation. In these imperfect conditions it cannot be expected that individuals comply to existing rules straight down the line. Of course, it impossible to predict all future scenarios that will occur within a society made up of individual actors. An ideal theory should be capable of making exceptions and fitted to the specific circumstances rather than demanding strict compliance. In addition, a world in which all forms of injustice were removed, is a radical and utopian version of ideal theory that is not appropriate to analyse POD’s suitability.
As has been discussed, ideal theory guides our actions towards a clear direction, however, it does not specify which actions we should take in reaching the end-goal. Instead, clear principles and minimal requirements are the benchmarks for reaching the end-goal. It has the ability to answer difficult questions regarding the scope and boundaries of justice while determining which system is preferred over another (ibid:349). Ideal theory is useful in analysing POD as a suitable alternative economic system and incorporates important
concepts and principles for designing the structure of society. It is, however, of equal
importance to acknowledge the limitations of ideal theory as a theoretical framework to guide real life actions (ibid:352). Its limitations are related to practicality as it does not specify which actions to take in reaching the end-goal. It is very useful as a guideline when the conditions in society are optimal or normal, but it does not specify which actions to undertake in exceptional circumstances. This limitation of ideal theory can also be considered as an advantage due to its open character, it is flexible enough and capable of adjusting to
10 circumstances and interpretation for a wide range of cases. In specific circumstances it can be widely interpreted and provide adequate solutions, however its flexibility should not be interpreted as a theory without a clear direction. Ideal theory should always be interpreted within accepted guidelines and should not fail to achieve its initial objectives.
2.1.2 A realist critique
In response to limitations of ideal theory, consideration should be made
regarding political realism as a methodology. Alan Thomas (2015) highlights that political realists often assume that abstraction in ideal theory will lead to indeterminacy and the inability to cover all relevant cases that need to be covered. He argues, however, that this is not entirely the case and that ideal theory can be considered as abstract while not necessarily indeterminate or incompetent (Thomas 2015:3). According to Thomas, ideal theory and realism are completely different methodologies, because they operate on different levels and are assigned with different tasks. Ideal theory consists of abstractions and general principles and that due to its open character it can be interpreted and applied to many different situations as well as cover a wide range of cases by guiding people’s thoughts into the right direction.
Abstractions in ideal theory do not necessarily imply emptiness or a lack of clarity, on the contrary, principles and goals are determined and full of clarity (ibid:8). Ideal theory is more suitable for providing solutions on an abstract level, or as a guiding theory, while realism offers more practical and concrete solutions, adapting to the specific circumstances. A distinction in separate methodological domains answers different questions, thus remarks have to be made about the importance of political realism. Rawls admits that principles always depend on favourable conditions, therefore they don’t serve as a set of pre-given answers, but rather as a way of framing real-life problems. He emphasises the need for political judgement to solve problems in the social world, so long as within the limits of the defined concepts and principles. Ideal theory is realistic about the overlapping consensus on principles as a reasonable basis for human cooperation to reconcile existing differences between people (ibid:14)
Politics implicate interaction between human and their relationships with each other. It is not merely a matter of implementing systems and institutions to govern a society based on ideals and principles, political realism provides us with concrete directions on how to act in specific circumstances when interacting and socializing in a human cooperation (Geuss 2008:1). It is specifically concerned with the operation of political, social and economic institutions in interactions with human subjects. These are questions relating to human
11 motives to act in a certain way, when faced with different situations in political and social life. This does not imply a denial of the imaginary world of ideals, but rather, realism goes beyond theoretical questions and investigates the operation of ideals in a certain
circumstance. The main focus is the interaction between people and their behaviour in a specific context while taking possibilities and consequences into consideration (ibid:9).
Remarks should be made regarding the extent of realist considerations employed in this thesis. Although the importance of realism is acknowledged and clarified, I will not further provide practical solutions to POD, particularly reflections on cultural and historical differences. The results regarding POD’s suitability as an alternative economic system should act as a guiding ideal for contemporary Western capitalist societies and those functioning similarly. Though any implementation of an economic system should always be re-evaluated through a realist perspective and tailored to the specific context (ibid:14).
Human societies are not static, change is constant and therefore ideals that design the structure of society should always be open for innovation and development (ibid:15). This will help us break free from conformism and limiting ourselves to unchanging and out-dated structures. Although we may disagree on concepts such as justice, equality and freedom, political realism emphasizes the recognition of alternative viewpoints. It advocates for a more tolerant society in which people uphold relations with mutual understanding and respect. It is a view of a society in which differing opinions are taken into consideration instead of being excluded from the public realm (Hall 2015:10). Of course, endless deliberation does not bring about change or justice, eventually, decisions have to be made and reasonable and suitable ideas should be executed. Since it is impossible to take into account all different opinions, concessions should be made in order to achieve peace and harmony in society. This can be accomplished by treating others as fellow seekers in finding the truth about which system is suitable for implementation (Williams 2005:13). Thus, we need to consider alternative systems in which people can best live together while acknowledging the existence of conflict and disagreement in human cooperation (Jubb 2015:682).
12 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1.1 Justice as fairness
To resolve conflicting interests in society, it is necessary for people to engage in cooperative relations within a set of specified and regulated rules concerning shared goods in society. Every person in society typically prefers a larger share of the goods and is primarily concerned with their own economic survival. A set of principles would determine which social arrangements are most suitable for reaching agreement on the best way to distribute each share. Rawls (1999) also refers to these rules as principles of social justice, consisting of rights and duties for the basic institutions of society to define the appropriate distribution in social cooperation. These principles are a common point of view shared between people in which claims of justice can be made justified. Instead of focusing on existing differences between people, a possible source of conflict, principles of justice concentrate on common points of mutual agreement between people (Rawls 1999:4).
The conception of justice as fairness builds on common principles in which people in political organization can reach a mutual agreement to resolve conflicts. A suitable and justified political organization can levitate the bond between people and improve their social conditions. It is evident that individuals uphold separate aims and goals they want to achieve in life. A public and shared understanding of justice can help establish a bond of civic friendship between people. The conception of justice does not only serve a political goal, a fair distribution of goods in society, but also upholds a social goal aiming at a well-ordered and peaceful society. A set of principles is required to assign citizens with basic rights and duties. This determines the necessary actions required to reach a proper distribution of both the benefits and burdens of social cooperation.
This can be achieved by a conception of justice as fairness, which holds that no arbitrary distinctions should be made between humans in assigning those basic rights and duties. This requires a proper balance between competing claims on justice reducing conflicting relations between people. The notion of an arbitrary distinction and a proper balance are left open for political interpretation so long as it is within the guidelines of principles of justice (ibid:5). Competing claims can refer to the distribution of available goods since individuals in society would want a better share for themselves and their family. Another example are people’s claims on the exercise of negative freedom, intersecting with claims for a more egalitarian society. To what extent are restrictions on people’s negative
13
freedom justified in order to achieve a desired level of human cooperation. Competing claims
on the regulation of different political liberties to establish a fair and just society.
Justice as fairness denies that the loss of freedom for one individual can be made
right, in order to grant greater freedom for a group of people. Justice assumes that every human has an equal amount of rights, regardless of inherent differences between people. Sacrifices that are imposed on a few to the advantage of the majority are not allowed. An injustice is only tolerable when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice, thus requiring a balance between the competing claims on justice (ibid:3). Justice as fairness requires equality between people, situated in a political and social environment, based on political liberties such as equality and freedom. The political conception of justice is designed to provide for the basic structure of society (Rawls 2001:19). POD’s suitability should be based on a political conception of justice that defines citizens as equals amongst each other. Individuals in a political environment are regarded as equal if they have an essential
minimum of equal powers, necessary to engage in a social cooperation and take part as equal citizens in society. The basis of equality depends on having a minimum degree of capacities, thus enabling individuals to fully take part in cooperative social life and demand their equal political liberties in society. Equality also entails that the citizenry is equal in position with their representatives and that they enjoy equal rights in the procedure of a political agreement (ibid:20). Political equality will thereafter lead to social equality and contribute to a fair and just society.
3.1.2 Basic structure of society
The subject of justice as fairness is the basic structure of society in which social institutions distribute the fundamental rights and duties of social cooperation. The major institutions are defined as the economic and social arrangements in society and have an institutional role in protecting important liberties such as freedom and equality (Rawls 1999:6). In the basic structure of society, people are born in a variety of social positions and with different expectations of what they want to achieve in life determined by economic, political and social circumstances. Inequalities between people affect individual capacity and result in an unfair distribution in opportunity and prospect. Principles of justice can regulate the economic and social system to reduce these kinds of inequalities in life (ibid:7).
Although justice as fairness aims at achieving socio-economic equality, it has to be understood as a political conception of justice, rather than part of a comprehensive moral doctrine (Rawls 2001:xvi). A practical aim of justice as fairness is to provide an acceptable
14 philosophical and moral basis for institutions to address political questions on liberty and equality (ibid:5). The role of a political conception of justice is not to provide an exact answer on how these questions should be settled, but to provide a framework of thought in which they can be approached. For our judgements to be reasonable they must be informed by an awareness of the specific circumstances and must be met with adequate political judgement (ibid:12). Justice as fairness is the fair terms of social cooperation given by an agreement that is entered by those who are engaged in it. The point of view in which the fair terms of agreement can be reached is specified by the original position, along with the feature that Rawls refers to as the veil of ignorance.(ibid:15). For the sake of clarity and length of the thesis, I won’t further elaborate on those ideas of Rawls.
Rawls (2001) adopts two principles of justice:
1. Each person has the same claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which are compatible with the scheme of liberties of others. 2. Existing social and economic inequalities have to satisfy two conditions:
(a) They are attached to offices and positions open to all under the conditions of
fair equality of opportunity.
(b) They have to comply with the difference principle, which are to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged in society (ibid:43).
People’s basic rights can only be enjoyed in a civil society if the principles of justice are respected by all. Each person is obligated to conform to the principles of justice and respect others and their basic rights (Simmons 1999:755). The rights of others require our collective efforts in bringing justice (ibid:768). Public policies in the basic structure have to be justifiable to all citizens and participation entails that all citizens are obliged to the principles of justice. The best form of a political structure includes the notion of political justification with clear definitions of the concepts equality and freedom. Moral questions about the scope of justice should be discussed prior to designing the structure of society (ibid:758). A political system must show through the basic structure of society as a system that all individuals can agree-upon and involve institutions that capable of defining and regulating the fundamental terms of social cooperation (Sleat 2015:234). The justification of political principles can be demonstrated on rational grounds or on the grounds of moral
15 defensibility. For example by putting questions relating to a fair distribution of goods not only through a balance of interests, but also within a wider moral context (ibid:235).
3.2 Negative liberty
Justice as fairness requires a proper balance between equality and other important
political liberties. In this thesis I will focus on the balance between equality of justice and the negative conception of freedom. How does the conception of freedom shape our ideas, institutions and practices in an economic system (Williams 2005:75)? Freedom can be used as a political value instead of answering metaphysical questions, for example, it does not include the discussion about the freedom of the will. Furthermore, the political conception of freedom does not entail obstructions in our freedom caused by natural events. The discussion is instead concerned with political disagreement in the conception of freedom. For example, concerns regarding political authority and the political decisions that are needed to justify POD as an economic system (ibid:76). Bernard Williams (2005) gives us examples of what we could envision as obstructions in political theory. These include obstructions through the use of force, coercion or in the form of social rejection. Some obstructions are less obvious than others, i.e. in the form of unfair competition or, by-products of an arrangement, which structurally disadvantages others despite not being intended (ibid:80).
One striking example of obstruction to our negative freedom is unfair competition between agents in a capitalist society. Due to a lack of resources or capital, an individual agent is unable to compete with larger shareholders. Before the competition even starts this individual is already behind when compared with agents who own large amounts of capital. An individual cannot execute what he initially wanted to do, due to obstacles caused by another person. This counts as an obstruction in a person’s negative freedom caused by another person. The marketplace is an institution that creates chances for agents to involve in commercial activities with each other. Within the structure of the marketplace, agents can make decisions to obstruct others in their negative freedom, for example by unfair
competition. Agents can make decisions whether to pay workers a fair wage-rate or instead exploit workers with a low wage-rate. Those kind of obstructions are unjustified, because they don’t respect others in their political liberties such as equality and freedom.
In politics, the limits of obedience and coercion are frequently questioned. This is because people are often deprived of their freedoms through coercion. Since freedom can be understood in different ways, what do we specifically understand as negative freedom?
16 The first conception of negative freedom is the area of freedom in which a person or group of persons is allowed to do what they want to do, without the interference of others (Berlin 1969:121) Negative liberty3 in this sense is the area in which a person is unobstructed in doing what he wants to do. Coercion, however, is not just any form of restriction on freedom. It specifically implies deliberate interference by others within that area of my freedom in which the individual would otherwise act. A person’s negative freedom can only be limited by the interference of others and not merely by some form of human innate incapacity to attain a certain goal (ibid:122).
The negative conception of freedom depends on the political, social and economic circumstances created by others in obstructing an individual’s freedom. A deliberate interference in the area of freedom, whether directly or indirectly, can be considered as an unjust or unfair arrangements caused by others. However, negative freedom does not imply being limitless free of interference by others, because that would entail a boundless
interference into others freedom. The political conception of freedom, as opposed to natural
freedom, aims to prevent situations of social chaos by protecting the liberties of the weak.
Limitations on negative freedom are allowed to protect other political liberties such as equality and freedom itself (ibid:123). Freedom is not the only goal of humankind and to avoid inequalities between people certain sacrifices on freedom can be made justified. Sometimes individuals will have their freedom limited to secure freedom for others (ibid:125). While people are entitled to a minimum degree of freedom, depriving others of their freedoms can justify restraint and in certain cases the use of force. Isaiah Berlin (1969) explains negative liberty through the ‘open door concept’ for when our choices are limited by others:
“… to block before him every door but one, no matter how noble the prospect upon which it opens, or how benevolent the motives of those who arrange this, is to sin against the truth he is a man, a being with a life of his own to live.” (ibid:127)
The institutional requirement for promoting certain kinds of freedom determines which obstructions are permissible in society. Some obstructions in citizen’s freedom are more intervening than others, therefore, in theorizing a new economic system it is highly
17 important to determine which conception of freedom is most valued in society (Pettit
2011:694). As ensuring our own freedom sometimes required the obstruction of others in their freedom, a proper balance is required between limitations on freedom and other political liberties. To which extent are obstructions in our negative freedom allowed to ensure others of their political liberties?
The second conception of Negative freedom is not simply ensured by the ability to do what you actually planned to do, but the ability to do what you might want to do, among the relevant alternatives. In the negative sense, it is the absence of obstacles caused by others to possible choices and activities. Negative freedom entails being able to choose from a wide range of alternatives and not only from alternatives that are made available for you. Berlin (1969) explains that choices are like doors you can push open, and depends on how many doors are available and where the doors lead. The extent of a person’s negative freedom depends not just on whether the door you push is open, but on whether all the doors are open (ibid:698). Throughout the thesis I will employ this second view on negative freedom, because it entails a wider area in which a person is free, including present and possible choices. A person is not truly free if he has to make a choice amongst only a limited range of choices that have been determined by others. It limits your negative freedom because the range of possible choices have been deliberately constrained in an attempt to restrict your freedom.
The ideal of negative freedom has a modal character, not only looking at the current world, but also at possible worlds and possible alternatives. Considering as many alternatives as possible in which ones’ freedom can be obstructed by others (ibid:701). Bearing in mind that negative freedom is not always desirable under all circumstances, it should be limited if it does not come with a reasonable balance in cost and choices (ibid:702). The
acknowledgement of negative freedom as a suitable conception to design the structure of society does not mean that restrictions on freedom are unacceptable. On the contrary, restrictions on freedom can be justified depending on the circumstances, which is subject to political deliberation. Not all restrictions on freedom can be considered morally wrong. This is a very important distinction and a characteristic of the negative conception of liberty. It is irrational to assume that humans can be absolutely free within human cooperation. Although we are individual beings, obstructions to our freedom are unavoidable when interacting with other individuals. Some obstruction is necessary for achieving a well-ordered and peaceful society. This benefits not only our own interests, but also those of the whole society.
18 3.3 Limitations of capitalism
The importance of theorizing POD as a suitable alternative economic system, can only be understood through an analyse of the limitations of contemporary capitalist systems. What are the limitations of contemporary capitalism, what is the scope of its critique and what should we do better when looking for alternative systems? A conception of the
limitations of capitalism is required to understand the reasons behind capitalism as a flawed economic structure. First off, capitalism is not a synonym for the market economy, the latter is concerned with production and exchange, while capitalism is associated with the
exploitation of wage-labour and the commodification of labour power (Wagner 2011:3). This distinction between a market economy and capitalism is important, since my critique is not directed towards market systems in general, but it is specifically directed towards the sale of labour-power of workers in a market system. Capitalism enables commercial freedom combined with the invention and diffusion of technology, such that work increasingly became the operation of machines (ibid:9). The role of labour in contemporary capitalism is deploying the use of new technology, instead of emphasising the worth of true labour by workers.
Enterprises are personally owned and capitalists are the organizers of production, establishing a hierarchical relation between employers and employees, which requires a high level of devotion and strong work ethic from workers (ibid:11). A distinction is created between economic agents who hold decisive control over the production process and another type of agents who is subjected to the commands of the owners of capital. These unequal power relations between capitalists and workers led to deteriorating working conditions for workers, putting them in a vulnerable position by excluding them from the economic organization. Capitalist systems are a form of exploitation by the appropriation of major shareholders who own the productive process and exert control over production decisions (ibid:14). An economic system that centres around the accumulation of capital which enables the owners of capital with excessive power towards workers. In this system the labour of workers is only considered as part of a systematic cost and benefit calculation, instead of productive activity provided by real human subjects. Agents who don’t own the economic process are denied of a determining role in this unfair economic system. Social problems persist in the context of domination and exclusion by participation, instead of upholding the goal of equal collective self-determination and control over one’s own life (ibid:15). In the capitalist structure people are not offered a choice, they are forced to participate in the
19 capitalist system as a means of providing for their economic needs, while having little control over the exercise of their labour. The dominant economic agents continue to accumulate endless capital on the expense of the weaker economic agents in society.
In recent history state-organized capitalism emerged as a hegemonic social
transformation in the post-war era of most Western countries. The state played an active role in the regulation of national economies by the implementation of a mix of infrastructural investment, industrial policy and the decommodification of goods (Fraser 2009:100). The involvement of the state was characterized by the use of political power to regulate financial markets, initially with good intentions aiming to promote inclusion, social equality and cross-class solidarity. Unfortunately, these ideals were interpreted in an economistic and cross- class-centric way and social questions were not adequately translated into action. Instead the state’s economistic vision of society resulted in social division through class differences, leading to suppression of the dimensions of social justice. State-organized capitalism functioned on a technocratic and managerial work ethos, relying on professional experts to design policies and bureaucratic organizations to regulate citizens life in and outside the workplace (ibid:103).
Elizabeth Anderson (1990) analyses the ethical limitations of capitalist markets through the concept of freedom, which primarily entails the choice of consumption and the use of commodities in capitalist systems. Freedom in capitalism implies having a wide range of choices in the marketplace, the ability to use commodities and services in the private sphere without asking permission from others. The marketplace as an expression of individualism by drawing a clear distinction between the self and the other in society (Anderson 1990:182). This conception of freedom promotes strong competition between individuals, instead of laying emphasise on the importance of cooperation and equality in a human society. Although capitalism indeed succeeds in promoting individuality, it fails to bring economic freedom for all citizens and elevate the unbalanced economic relations in society. Enterprises exploit employees by establishing paternalistic relationships with them, putting them in a dependent position in the firm by acting as their economic providers. In return they demand feelings of gratitude and loyalty from workers which again are being exploited by employees to extract more labour and obedience. In the vicious circle of capitalism workers are put in a dependent position, they are given little choice in order to provide for their basic means of survival. The existing inequalities between employers and employees are not reciprocal in nature, poor performance and disobedience on the part of workers can lead to dismissal of the workplace. The tight job market can easily permit the
20 disposal of workers, due to the abundance of labour power and in return not as many job positions available (ibid:189).
Unequal relations of power between capitalists and workers are relations of economic dependency, in which capitalists provide workers with their basic means of survival. In a capitalist system the owners of large amount of property and capital have great control over those who own less. In the conception of negative freedom, workers are not truly free to make their own economic decisions, their choices are limited by capitalist agents who own the productive process, resulting in political and social control. A lack of economic means4 is not the only circumstance that restricts a person’s freedom, but being poor deprives a lot of activities that a poor person would do if he wasn’t poor. Gerald Cohen (2011) provides a simple example of the poor person who is unable to visit her sister in a distant town, because she can’t afford the special bus services. She merely enjoys ‘formal freedom’, because the state does not prohibit her to take the special bus, but she is prevented from doing what she wants since she can’t afford the special service (Cohen 2011:167).
In the structure of a capitalist society freedom is to a great extent granted through the distribution of money, therefore money is a way of structuring freedom. The lack of money is an absence of freedom, it entails the presence of interference by others (ibid:175). Goods and services can’t be accessed without the use of money, if a person attempts to access those in the absence of money, he will be interfered in his negative freedom. There is a physical inability to access those goods and services, upholding an interference in your negative
freedom (ibid:176). The value of money is that it gives you freedom, which does not imply
that you will exercise that freedom, but it is the possibility to exercise that freedom when you wish to (ibid:177). When a person’s economic security is enhanced, fewer obstacles will present to possible choices and activities, enhancing their individual liberty (ibid:180). Money is a social construct created by humans, a social power in its essence (ibid:185). A lack of money is a lack of negative freedom, which upholds the possibility of being interfered by others.
Due to economic and social restrictions people are not truly free, in the sense that they are unobstructed in doing what they want to do, these restrictions can’t be justified according to the negative conception of freedom. Not being able to access goods and services in society implies an obstruction in a person’s negative freedom. The lack of money implies that certain economic and social activities are blocked by others, who demand an economic
21 compensation for those goods and services they provide. The doors are blocked by others, unless you can provide them with an economic compensation. These inequalities are arbitrary in nature in the sense that there is no valid reason for a person to be more entitled than
another person. According to the conception of justice as fairness these economic and social inequalities between people are not justified, because they are unable to give people equal basic liberties.5 A lack of economic means decreases the opportunity to equally access offices and positions in society, to access them requires proper education, housing, food etc. And these inequalities don’t benefit the least advantaged in society, since they only affect the poor.6
The ownership of capital should not determine one’s position in the socio-political order. Wealth should not be accumulated through the suffering and misery of other human beings. Capitalist agents exploit the labour of workers to gain maximum profit in order to make themselves better off at the expense of others. In capitalist structures, the ability to hold control over one’s own life depend on economic success, while people should be able to contribute to their own political, social and economic success.
5 This refers to the first principle of justice (Rawls 2001:43). 6 This refers to the second principle of justice (Rawls 2001:43).
22 PROPERTY-OWNING DEMOCRACY
4.1.1 Property-owning democracy as an ideal
The rise of property-owning democracy occurred in the late twentieth-century political discourse and the term was for the first time adopted in political theory by the economist James Meade. However it was John Rawls who attracted a great amount of attention for the economic ideal when he brought it up in the 1980’s and 1990’s, as a non-socialist model to reach distributive justice (Jackson 2014:33). Historian Hilaire Belloc argued that the capitalist combination of political freedom for a minority, who also owned the means of production would cause serious social instability and injustice in society. He held it unacceptable that a minority group of citizens appropriates all the means of production, resulting in unaccountable political, social and economic power. He already argued that society needs a wider diffusion of individual property amongst citizens (ibid:37). Political economist Oscar Skelton also witnessed the economic grievances felt by the working class, alongside the political instability of capitalism. He wished for the creation of a real
identification of interest between citizens and their labour, this would in effect lead workers to obtain more economic power, releasing them from the unjust capitalist structure. Instead of being exploited by the economic system, workers should be able to equally participate in the economic system and start thinking like a capitalist. Anthony Eden remarked that citizens shouldn’t depend on the state to provide for their basic means of survival, but instead be capable of achieving these things by themselves (ibid:39).
Property-owning democracy is an economic model with a claim on the ownership of private property as a way to achieve independence of mind and social stability for citizens, through the responsible exercise of political power. It upholds the believe that a much larger part of the citizenry should be entrusted with political power, rather than only a few in society. This meant wider political responsibility for a larger group of citizens through a wider diffusion of private property (ibid:34). Income should exist of a genuine effort of the individual, which is necessary to maintain their own economic efficiency and also society’s economic efficiency. Individual property can lead to more freedom and equality for citizens in society (ibid:41). Individual ownership of property has the potential of making citizens independent of government support due to people’s own effort to control their means of survival.
23 Economic independency leads to greater negative freedom, decreasing the likelihood of being obstructed by others, which results in more political and social freedom. First it leads to more freedom in the workplace and in the choice of the workplace. A more equal distribution of property will decrease the unequal relations between employers and
employees. Second citizens are not dependent on others to provide for their basic means of survival. Relations of dependency are unequal relations of power between people in which someone has control over the other. It upholds a possibility of being obstructed in what you want to do due to lack of economic means. Economic means directly translates to social power. The ability to provide for one’s economic means directly translates to a greater
negative freedom.
Citizens will be more equal and independent from each other in all dimensions, however this won’t eradicate the need for social cooperation. Economic independency from others is not only in the advantage of the individual, but contributes to society’s economic well-being as a whole. When all citizens are able to accumulate their own individual property and satisfy primary needs, they become less likely to depend on government support or depend on charity from others. On the contrary, economic independent citizens are able to contribute to society’s common goals, such as the financing of public goods and services, which benefits society as a whole. Ownership of individual property encourages citizens to improve their socio-economic wellbeing which is in society’s advantage as well.
4.1.2 Meade: egalitarian vision
James Meade (1948) recognized the use of price mechanism as a tool to promote individual liberties and economic efficiency. However, a society cannot entirely depend on the workings of the market, because it would lead to unacceptable poverty and extreme inequalities between people. For this reason, Meade further proposed a significant role for the state to regulate a more equal distribution of income and wealth, through the progressive taxation of wealth and the introduction of a co-partnership between labour and capital instead of the traditional capitalist firms. The development of state investments would take up a significant part of private industry, transferred to public profits capital to fund a basic income for all citizens. Meade’s (1993) ideas for a more egalitarian distribution of property in
property-owning democracy can partially be taken back to republican ideals, which upholds the belief that a person with much property has greater bargaining strength, along with a greater sense of security and freedom in comparison with a person who has less property. The propertyless man has to rely on the man with property as a provider for basic income,
24 subjected to his authority and power to provide for his basic needs. The republican theory directly relates the unequal distribution of property to an unequal distribution of power and status (Jackson 2014:45).
My concerns are about the goal of an equal distribution of income in POD in relation to other political liberties such as freedom. These questions relate to the role of the state and the justification of state intervention regarding to the negative conception of freedom. To what extent should the state intervene with citizen’s negative freedom in order to secure a more equal distribution of property and income? Although economic independence is directly related to questions of power, in how far can economic power be considered as the ultimate source of power as the republicans would acknowledge it as such? There are other sources of power such as a person’s political and social competency, while republicans seem to suggest that all forms of power solely derive from an individual’s economic status in society. There is obviously an interconnection between these different forms of power, in the sense that they are interdependent and related to one another.
However, I don’t acknowledge that all forms of power solely depend on a person’s economic status in society. For example, a person who owns a relatively large amount of property and capital can be considered as powerful in the economic sense, but does economic power directly translates to an equal amount of political and social power? This is definitely not the case, since socio-political power also depend on other influential factors and specific circumstances, such as the conditions of a person’s physical and mental abilities. Amongst other things, political competence depend on the ability to communicate, deliberate and actively participate in the community. A person’s social position in society depend on a variety of factors such as physical appearance and strength, but also intelligence or a person’s attitude against others. Basically every characteristic of humanity can be put on a scale for comparison and influences a person’s socio-political position. Nevertheless, it can’t be disregarded that a person’s economic position is of significant importance in determining the relations of power. The degree of economic stability determines one’s chances to provide for their basic means of survival and their chances to simply exist. Therefore it is not an
surprising thought to consider economic power as the ultimate source of power, determining all other forms of power.
Meade (1993) envisioned property-owning democracy as a hybrid egalitarian strategy, combining measures to equalize private property with an increase in the social ownership of the economy. One of the most important elements in Maede’s (1975) egalitarian vision is the introduction of an unconditional basic income, which Rawls for example was
25 more hesitant about. He envisioned an economy made up of firms allocating incomes via profit-sharing agreements with their employees and the realization of a community fund, which owns 50% of the nation’s productive assets to fund his ideal of an unconditional basic income for all citizens (Jackson 2014:46). Rawls appropriation of POD was a means of fostering civic equality through a more equal distribution of social and economic freedom. This could be established through larger social ownership of property by the community and greater worker participation in the governance of the market industry (ibid:47). The most distinctive part of Rawls view is the belief that POD could replace welfare-state capitalism in its entirely. His vision reached further than the notion of contemporary welfare state under capitalism. POD requires a general redistribution of income, full employment, universal social services and the redistribution of property. Rawls version of POD did not promote a basic minimum income for citizens through the provision of social welfare by the state7, which runs a higher risk of financial instability for citizens due to possible failure of the market system8 (ibid:48).
However, does Meade’s ideal of an unconditional basic income regulated by the state through community funding comply with notions of negative freedom? It would impose restrictions on citizens in the sense that they become economic dependable on the state and on community fundings. Along with a significant responsibility on the institution of the state if 50% of the nation’s productive assets would be regulated by the state, transferring a great amount of economic power in the hands of one large institution. Citizens then become dependent on the state’s charity and grace to provide for their basic means of survival. Furthermore, the successful implementation of a basic minimum income through community funding depend on two conditions:
1. A stable and reliable state to regulate the nation’s productive assets. 2. A majority of citizen’s consent to entrust the state with such great power.
The second condition at least impose restrictions on citizen’s economic freedom, resulting in restrictions on negative freedom. Are citizens willing to transfer the responsibility of a great amount of the nation’s productive assets entirely in the hands of the state? Although Meade has good intentions towards a more egalitarian society, he places a high emphasis on the reliability and functioning of institutional power, which takes too much responsibility away
7 Note that Rawls did not oppose welfare rights in general.
26 from citizens and their capability to provide for their own basic means of survival. I agree that market mechanism are unable to achieve a more egalitarian distribution of income and a certain degree of state intervention is required to regulate the nation's productive assets. However, Meade’s proposal to put a high percentage of 50% of the nation’s productive assets in hands of the state should be reconsidered, this to prevent a high level of concentration of power in one single institution such as the state. Since state institutions are governed by individuals, there exists a real possibility of abuse of power, which jeopardizes the ideal of a more equal distribution of property and income in POD. Humans and the institutions they govern are not flawless, therefore we must be cautious of entrusting too much power in the hands of a few, whether this concerns government institutions or individuals. A level of economic independence for citizens is required to secure people of their negative freedom.
Meade (1946) considered issues concerning the distribution of human capital as essential to our understanding of economic distributive justice. Questions concerning the earning power of citizens depend on the level of received education and training which involves the investment of resources into human capital. A specific concentration on the distribution of wealth including material and human capital, as a way of obstructing
intergenerational differences of wealth between people, for example by the accumulation of capital through family wealth. Meade proposed various policy mechanisms, such as a tax system, direct transfer payments, education policy, housing policy, industrial policy and government intervention in the financial market for a unified and integrated political goal (O’Neill 2014:79). Meade wants to redistribute wealth more equally by transferring large parts of citizens pre-owned property through governmental policy, rather than solely a taxation on income. The redistribution of wealth imposes a great violation on citizen’s
negative freedom relating to ethical as well as practical reasons. It is hard to imagine that
citizens would voluntarily give consent to the redistribution of their owned property. For the same reasons, it could also be argued that citizens would not even agree on any form of taxation for communal purposes. However, in today’s world most societies succeed in implementing a form of taxation through governmental policy. I believe that the successful implementation of government taxation depends on a reasonable and justified execution of governmental policy.
If POD wants to be considered as a suitable alternative for capitalism it should not aim for a strict egalitarian society. The implementation of policy’s that are too intrusive into people’s negative freedom, by putting too much pressure and weight on a specific group of
27 citizens in society9, runs the risk of resistance and revolt against the government. Not all of
Meade’s ideas are as intrusive such as a taxation system and industrial policy, but measurements like direct transfer payments to the government should be reconsidered. Transfer payments directly intervene with people’s choice to decide over their own property. Since POD’s goal is enabling citizens with their own basic means of survival through a more equal distribution of property, governmental policy should limit itself to that specific task and not exceed its boundaries. Not all restrictions on people’s negative freedom are acceptable in favour of distributive justice. If governmental measures should be implemented, they have to be on a reasonable scale and within the boundaries of justice as fairness, between a right balance of freedom and equality. If POD does not comply to the principles of justice as
fairness and negative freedom, it will result in a dominating and controlling system instead of
a better alternative for capitalism.
4.1.3 Rawls: two principles of justice
In summary, POD can be understood in three central aims starting with a wide dispersal of capital and a wide dispersal of the ownership of the means of production. All individual citizens should control amounts of society’s productive capital, including human and non-human capital, against the background of fair equality of opportunity. The second aim is disposal of the intergenerational transmission of advantage by limiting people’s
wealth, through for example inheritance and gift taxes to prevent large amount of inequalities between generations. The third aim is safeguarding against corruption of democratic politics by limiting the influence of private and corporate wealth on politics, including measures such as public funding of political parties and other measures to prevent the influence of wealth on politics (ibid:81).
State institutions and policies have a central role in eliminating inequalities in the distribution of the social primary goods. Rawls (2001) stated with the difference principle that inequalities in the distribution of goods are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged in society (O’Neill 2014:87). For example in POD, goods taken away from the rich and distributed amongst the poor can be justified, because the poor in this situation are the least advantaged in society. Justice as fairness would be fairly tolerant to certain
inequalities in the treatment of citizens, as long as the injustice is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. According to Rawls first principle of justice, each person should have the
9 The group of citizens, who are most likely to be affected in their negative freedom, are those who
28 same claim to the basic liberties. The poor in comparison with the rich in society, are in a political, social and economic disadvantage to enjoy those basic liberties. POD can restore these inequalities, starting by a more equal distribution of property in society. Rawls second principle of justice states that economic and social inequalities are allowed, under conditions of fair equality of opportunity and in compliance with the difference principle. POD is able to provide the poor with equal opportunities to access offices and positions in society. The redistribution of property will benefit the least-advantaged in society.
The large inequalities in the distribution of goods in society resulting in social and political inequality between people, can be considered as a great injustice. According to Rawls (2001) significant economic inequalities result in inequalities of social status and in relations of inferiority and domination (O’Neill 2014:88). The decisive question in Rawls
difference principle is whether the above mentioned injustice, is a greater injustice than the
act of violating people’s freedom by redistributing their owned property. Rawls support for POD as an alternative economic system suggests that he indeed considers those inequalities as a greater injustice.
In my opinion this depends on whether the existing inequalities in society are so great that they become unacceptable and unbearable in a fair and just society, for example in the case of contemporary capitalism. I agree that great economic inequalities contribute to political and social unrest and therefore should be effectively prevented. Furthermore, economic progress for all citizens (and not just a privileged group) help them believe in their freedom against others, as equal citizens amongst others with a valuable plan for their own life, on an equal standing with fellow citizens. The re-ordering of the social relations of production helps citizens realize their valued position in society and gain self-respect. POD is capable of overcoming relations of domination and social inequality, through the
re-organization of economic life (ibid:89).
Rawls (2003) already pointed out in his critique of capitalism that it was awash in meaningless consumerism. He expressed his contempt for the large banks and capitalist class of businessmen whose main goal was to enlarge their profit in a system of endless economic growth. He acknowledged that a just society could not be one with a determined political agenda, along with a determined structure of economic life in favour of capitalist interests (O’Neill 2014:75). Rawls (2001) identifies a number of structural limitations of capitalism which he considers as the structural constraints to the goal of a just society. The structure of a capitalist system rejects Rawls principle of justice as fairness by insufficiently protecting citizen’s political liberties such as equality and freedom, permitting large inequalities in the
29 ownership of property, productive assets and natural resources. The control of economic and political life rests in the hands of a minority who own most of society’s productive assets, leading to concerns about equality of opportunity. Great economic and social inequalities lead to unfair chances in life (O’Neill 2014:77). We should not be limited in our negative freedom in the initial beginnings of life, contributing to persevering inequalities in adulthood and in later stages of life.
According to the two principles of justice, a fair and just society should provide people with equal chances in attaining the same political liberties, regardless of their social class or origin. The role of POD is to give people those fair chances in life detached from their economic, social and political background. This will eventually lead to economic reciprocity in which people are capable of providing for their own basic needs, by
contributing and participating in the economic process (ibid:78). The principle of equality of
opportunity upholds that people are given fair and equal chances throughout the course of
life, which increases their chances to a full political, social and economic life. This does not imply that equal chances are a definite recipe for success, it depends on a person’s own effort and determination to achieve their goals in life. At least they are offered fair chances to do so, not being limited by economic and social circumstances, in which they are not in control of. The extent in which people are able to live a fulfilled life determine the stability and success of society as a whole, since people are its essential components.
POD aims at enabling people to contribute to their own society and restore their economic independence from others, contributing to their political and social independence. A more equal distribution of property and capital will provide citizens with the economic means to accomplish their goals in life, without being obstructed by economic difficulties and unequal power relations. POD attempts to eliminate great structural economic inequalities between people and increase their chances on political and social success. At the same time acknowledge that economic independence is not the only factor contributing to political and social equality. POD wants to achieve those goals by dispersing the ownership of capital and wealth more equally to prevent a small part of society from controlling the economy, and indirectly political and social life. A small class in society should not have the entire monopoly over the means of production. POD wants to avoid this from happening by ensuring a widespread ownership of the productive means against the backdrop of fair
equality of opportunity. Not by solely redistributing income in favour of the less endowed in
society, such as in the case of welfare-state capitalism. POD reaches further than simply making up for the inequalities between people due to bad brute luck or misfortune. Citizens
