Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Justice and Economic Distribution Justice can be defined as living and acting within the law. This means that every individual should act in a right manner and that do not abuse other people’s rights. When one fails to follow regulations within a country or a community, then the rule of law can take its course. However, for justice to prevail, even the law breakers should be judged fairly without discrimination, prejudice or judging out of hunger. On the other hand, justice should not only be seen in terms of punishing the law breakers, but it also means treating people in an equal and fair way. For instance, in a family set up parents should treat their children in an equal manner. According to the family justice, parents should only punish their children in a way that correct the mistake but reward children when they do a positive thing. The laws or regulations that ensure every person practices justice have their roots may be in societal norms, religious ethics, and the constitution of a state. The primary goal of every rule of law is to ensure that all every member of a state or a society a gets just treatment. According to Maiese, M (210) what people see as injustice is capable of resulting into unrest, dissatisfaction, or even revolution. He goes on to claim that there are various types of justices, coming as a result of various ways through which guiding principles of justice are expressed by various levels. The term distributism is an economic theory that supports economic fairness by promoting largest distribution of national wealth to a possible bigger population Anderson, G (98). Distributism to a wider sense can also apply to government set up and its operation, in terms of politics it means that constitution disseminate political command or power within the society. Since the economy of a state is not only influenced by social and environmental factors it therefore means that political distribution is part and parcel of economic distribution, and has to be put into consideration. It means that the system of governance can either influence the economic distribution in positive or negative way. For instance when the constitution of a democratic state disseminates power to the members of its society, they will have a role to play to ensure that there is transparency in the public offices. When the citizens ensure that they practice justice in their state, then it is automatic that there will be fair economic distribution. In economic distribution, the responsible authority has to consider the issue of justice, and that will bring distributive fairness. According to Maiese, M (212) the concern distributive fairness is honest distribution of possessions among individuals in the community. Fair distribution simply means one has to put into account the sum of property to be shared, the formula of distribution, and the model of sharing. It is true that every human society in the world is never satisfied with the capital, wealth, or resources that it poses. The societies are therefore, on toes to find ways by which they can accumulate more resources, but on the other hand they have to struggle to find out the best method of sharing the little resources that they have. There are a number of factors that determine how wealth is shared. The basic human needs, fairness, and impartiality are some of the principles that influence the sharing of resources. In terms of principle of impartiality, propose that an individual should receive a share of the national resources according to his or her contribution. Those individuals who perform at greater levels as per the expectations of the management of any organization deserve to earn more reward. For example, persons who work extremely hard at their workplace especially in a more profitable sector receive more pay. Impartiality principle of wealth sharing is commonly relates to an economic method which supports the same chance for competition. This kind of wealth distribution therefore, means that goods and other resources can also be shared depending on sweat and skill. The second principle that has to be taken into account for justice to prevail is the principle of human needs. This principle suggests that the government or any other responsible authority should distribute wealth according to the needs of individuals for a fair outcome. For instance, the government and non governmental bodies that usually support students in colleges through scholarships normally base their selection on the level of needs of the students. The students who should be given more funds are those from the humble financial background. It is necessary to admit that various societies have their different interests therefore, the resources should also be distributed according to the social efficacy or what is more significant to the community as a whole. For instance, the government will give food reliefs to the starving community who may have experienced a natural calamity such as floods or drought that destroyed their crops. It is therefore unnecessary for the government to take for such community recreation facilities. If the government takes such a step, it will be unjust for the members of that community. Equality is the last factor that determines how the relevant authority carries out economic distribution. The term equality according to Rhodes, R (189) means that it is a situation whereby people are rewarded equally regardless of their capability, effort, or human want. In other words, if equality is to be used as the guiding principle of economic distribution, each person will receive an equal share. Due difference in human wants the outcome of this economic method will neither be equal nor just. For example, every new person admitted to a local college in USA with having achieved a minimum aggregate point of 3.0, may be offered a 450 dollars scholarship. This is a sufficient gift for a leaner and his or her parents who are capable of raising the remaining portion of tuition fee. The scholarship will be of no significance to a leaner that cannot manage to raise the extra 5,500 dollars per year to go to school. Even though impartiality, equity, and the primary human wants influence how various authorities distribute wealth and resources, a lot of caution needs to be taken. The government has to be advised to make sure that it be careful when dealing with matters concerning the distribution of the public wealth. This caution according to Hahnel, R (205), will enable the government not to rely on one factor as the determinant of economic distribution. For instance, the government should not think of distributing more property or wealth to some group of persons simply because they have more needs than others. This might not be taken easy by the group that receives less resource, but the appropriate method that the government should use is to reward individuals according to their productive level, as well as their primary need. The factors that determine wealth distribution are always at a constant strain with one another therefore, people usually give consideration to one of the as the basic formula for allotment of resources. Some people think that what makes distribution fair is the final result. While others think that what matters is the regulations that give guidance to the determinant of distribution. What comes out clearly is that even when the final result of sharing the public resources is just, the methods and formula used to achieve the distribution might not be fair. On the other hand, the methods might be extremely fair but the outcome remains unjust, resulting to conflict due to unequal satisfaction of individuals’ personal interest. Distributive fairness or economic fairness recommends that all the people in either societal or communal set up should receive a just share of wealth. According to Harper, H.H (47) when issues of fairness in the allocation of resources are not adequately addressed, and property to be shared is on high demand, conflict can easily erupt. In conclusion, it is necessary to understand that even though the issue of justice and economic distribution are sometimes seen not to have any relationship, I boldly say that justice and economic distribution are intertwined in that they work side by side. Failure to assess the consequences of injustices in economic distribution and solving them at the right stage may lead to a wide spread of war that will further result to either a genocide third world war.

Works cited.
Anderson, G. Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, (2009). Hahnel, R. Economic Justice and Democracy: From Competition to Cooperation. New York: Routledge, (2005).
Harper, H. H. Economic Justice. New York: Oxford University press, (1964).
Maiese, M. Types of Justice. New York: University of Colorado, (2003).
Rhodes, R. Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care. USA: Oxford University Press, (2012).