The rapid development of technological innovation has yielded increasing returns on capital investment relative to labour. At the same time, the accumulation of capital seems to be concentrating...Show moreThe rapid development of technological innovation has yielded increasing returns on capital investment relative to labour. At the same time, the accumulation of capital seems to be concentrating more and more into the hands of a select few, resulting in the development of far-reaching economic inequalities. With the development of technological innovation having gained considerable momentum in modern times, the need to design effective policies centred around dealing with the economic, social and political effects of its development arguably seems more important than ever. Property-owning democrats –drawing on John Rawls' conception of justice as fairness- have set out proposals for curbing what they conceive to be undesirable developments in inequality, focusing mainly on the establishment of a socio-economic framework characterized by the widespread dispersal of capital assets. Some scholars such as Vallier (2015), however, have cast doubts on the desirability and effectiveness of adopting a property-owning democracy as the socio-economic arrangement fit to meet these challenges. This thesis attempts to settle the debate. I argue that the satisfaction of the Rawlsian fair value of political liberties favours the justification of a property-owning democracy over that of welfare-capitalism. Furthermore, I assert that the satisfaction of Rawls’ difference principle depends on the exact definition of ‘benefiting’ the least well off, so that this principle may favour the justification of either socio-economic arrangement. I further argue that meeting Rawls’ principle of equality of opportunity would be better served in the context of welfare-state capitalism, taking into account the critiques set out by O’Neill (2009) and Vallier. In addition, I identify further theoretical issues regarding property-owning democrats’ definition of private property that have, in my view, not been sufficiently addressed. Lastly, I identify a number of practical issues regarding the implications of a property-owning democracy in an economic context. Given that only the fair value of political liberties points directly towards the justification of a property-owning democracy -with its justification on the basis of the difference principle and equality of opportunity being questionable and thus unjust- I conclude that a property-owning democracy is not justifiable on Rawlsian grounds.Show less
