The LA Superior Courts plan to cut costs by minimizing the number of courts hearing cases involving landlord disputes. According to the article, this plan will disproportionately affect low-income tenants and residents, who will have to travel larger distances, at higher costs to get to their hearings as a result. Costs will be further incurred by these tenants when the distance to the cases forces them to miss work. The costs of such a plan significantly outweigh the benefits for low-income citizens. Furthermore, the plan violates Rawls’ difference principle because the courts will no longer be equally distributed as a result of the reduction.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-…
Policy research institutes
I agree with your comment that this article violates Rawls’s difference principle. The least off in this situation, the low-income tenants, are certainly not receiving any benefit from having to travel further and spend more costs. In addition to the hundreds that are being laid off in the court system are certainly not receiving any benefit from this outcome. This also violates Nozick’s basic theory in which the case is not rejecting the cutting of court handling landlord disputes and employment cuts. Therefore showing an absence of rejecting a non-voluntary transaction. Violating the lack of just distribution arising from another just distribution by legitimate means.
I think this article and issie is a good extension of how dangeours the practical appication of Rawlsian thought can be. I don’t think that a claim that a policy adversley effects less well of individuals should automatically disqualify that policy. Such an idea would make it impossible to cut any government porgram or service, regardless of the outstadning circumstances. In this case, the state of California would need to increase taxes in order to continue to provide easy access to rental adjudication courts. A Rawlsian would propose to taxing the rich.. But what a Rawlsian fails to realize is that the more money is taken away from the private economy, the less efficent that economy is, and the less well of all of its members are, including the poor tenants. Furthermore, because of government inefficeny and the Laffer effect, money collected from taxes never seems to pay for the entirety of the services the tax revenue was allocated for. And thus, more taxes are needed to cover the cost of what has become a neccesary service. Surlely, the sorry state of California’s current finances speakes to the deadly nature of adapting Rawlsian logic in policy analysis.