Philosophy

It could be argued that, in our democracy, there is a “market for political influence”—that wealthy individuals and organizations (corporations, unions, political action groups) can use their wealth to influence the political process to benefit themselves—at the expense of other citizens. For example, powerful industry groups can prevent legislatures from enacting stricter health and safety standards, and ultra-wealthy individuals can influence tax legislation through campaign donations and funding intense lobbying. Thus, even though every person has one vote in our democracy, wealthier citizens and groups have greater political power because of inequalities in economic power—inequalities that can significantly benefit them to the disadvantage of others. (1) Explain what you think a libertarian, on the one hand, and Rawls, on the other, might say about the justice or injustice of this inequality of political influence and what (if anything) each would say should be done about it. (2) Present your own detailed view of whether this inequality of political influence is unjust? If you don’t think it’s unjust, explain why. If you do believe it is unjust, explain whose problem it is and what they should do to address it. (As usual, my interest is in your arguments rather than the particular position you take.)

I’m attaching one of my papers so that you can see my writing style