In the matter of public policy, do we look to the results of policy and make amends from there? Or do we focus on the process of distribution through policy, and redistribute to make it equal? The importance of policy-making affects all citizens equally. It is probably the one guaranteed equal result of policy: it will affect your life, whether it is through change or your life remains the same. However, in the end result of the policy in action, this changes. Those whose lives have changed through policy could vary in effects: good, bad, or barely at all. Meanwhile, others may not feel the repercussions of a policy, and again this could vary as positive and negative. Unlike Deborah Stone’s example, life is not cake, which is why I favor the …show more content…
The society chose equality, however this equality was of equal result. In order to make everyone equal, others were forced into a lesser state with impairments. For example, if a woman is “too pretty,” she must wear a mask to make her average or even ugly in appearance; and if another were intelligent beyond the “average” or “normal” intelligence, they wear devices that make a shrill sound to interrupt their intelligent thoughts (Vonnegut 1&3). Stone herself acknowledges the potential and likely negative effects the end-result theory could have on liberty, as the debate often asks “what kind of interference with liberty one finds acceptable as a price of distributive justice.” (Stone 57) However, the point is: even in this process for a result of equality, the people within this society were still unequal, and reality would likely find similar outcome. The influence of policy for equal results will only affect so many, and the consequences may force others down the totem pole, or to lesser state of existence for the sake of “equality.” And in the case of the United States, this would unequally strip the rights and liberties of select citizens for the sake of “equal …show more content…
Distribution of equity should be equal in the process; therefore, as Stone states, “if the rules of the game in the marketplace competition give an unfair advantage to very large firms, the answer is to limit the behavior of larger firms…” (Stone 57) In this case, distribution is limited to allow equal opportunity and to keep from unfair advantage, but it still gives citizens rights to that which they have earned. Where, as Nozick states, “…end-result distribution is self-contradictory because what it gives with one hand it takes away with the other.” (Stone 57) Even as the process of redistribution would also take work, proper planning, and enforcement, compared to the end-result perspective, it still “gives people entitlements.”