 Tom you have about ten minutes. Okay. Thank you very much Henri I should mention that perhaps its evidence of what Hegel a follower of fichte would have called the cunning of reason That I happen to have read Some essays of fichte on the train coming from Marseille So there was an invisible hand leading me to be able to comment on some of these questions I have five points that I would like to make in addition to a general endorsement of I think a very Profound analysis of some problems and social justice Some of my comments of course will be critical because those are the more interesting things for a commentator to isolate First I should like to Clarify something. I think there was a bit of a contradiction in the paper a small one and perhaps Dr. Lloyd we would agree with me at the beginning. He said that we can identify very distinct social classes who are beneficiaries or who are victims or losers from the welfare state. I Think in a Vibhari and sociological analysis. This is true. We can identify ideal types Who are winners or losers, but the great difficulty which he acknowledges later when he talks about George Stickler's Law director's law the reality is far more complicated Because most of us are winners and losers at the same time and it's very difficult to know whether we are net Beneficiaries or net losers That's exactly why the welfare state is so very difficult to challenge in a democratic society because all of us are 100 francs poorer and 70 francs richer and it's difficult for us to know Exactly where we may stand on the scale of benefits. So that's a small criticism But I think it's important if we want to understand the welfare state and democratic societies We're all partly winners and partly losers and the state has created a deliberate System that makes it difficult for us to know on which side we stand The second point relates to distributive justice Which dr. Loeb a largely? Criticized for very good reasons But I think that liberals should be concerned with distributive justice it is at the heart of Liberalism because there is one resource in the world which does have a just Distribution and that is your own person and this is why Fichte to take the early fichte of 1793 not the fichte of 1812 or 1813 the early fichte was a very strong liberal and in two books that he wrote which unfortunately are not Available in English, but perhaps they are in French He defended a liberal conception of distributive justice beginning with the right of each person to own and have Dominium as this scholastics would say over herself or himself and from this we can derive a liberal system of Distributive justice not as a purely deductive matter But as a touchstone as we would say for the justice of the whole system of the market order This principle of course is central to the philosophy of John Locke But also of the Spanish scholastics Bartolome de las Casas Francisco Vittoria and others who contributed to the liberal tradition So I do think it is important that we not give the the field of distributive justice to the dear yeast and to the socialist There is a liberal theory of distributive justice based on one's control of one's own person and resources This is denied by theorists of the welfare state such as John Rawls Who explicitly says you do not deserve your talents. You do not deserve Who you are in fact, he says you do not even deserve your motivation So if we found one person is poor because he does not work and is lazy and Another is better off because he is very industrious Rawls says the industrious deserves nothing Because he does not deserve his motivation his industriousness So this is an area where liberalism and the dear yeast collectivist philosophy clash very directly those attempts to overcome this as Jean-Pierre Santis and the and the Jacques mentioned earlier inevitably result in Not equality but a new kind of accretion of power and unequal power distribution in society Because social equality is a very vague concept. It's difficult to determine and of course We require someone over us to make the determination and those people the politicians or bureaucrats will have more power It is a necessity that a system that attempts completely equal distribution of income will result in unequal distribution of power and There's a consequence normally unequal distribution of income as well, which will now be determined politically my Fourth point that was also mentioned in dr. Loeb's presentation that I think deserves more emphasis is That the welfare state is not really a system of equality But a fundamental and profound Inequality of rights specifically between insiders and outsiders Under a liberal system an immigrant who comes to France or Germany or the United States has the same Fundamental human rights as everyone else the right to work the right to their own life and property But the welfare state generates unequal entitlements French citizens are entitled to something but not foreigners in this generates conflict and a great deal of hostility towards immigrants Towards other nationalities Has been created by the welfare state the welfare state actually generates and fosters the most ugly kinds of nationalism and racism because There's a conflict over limited entitlements and for every foreigner who comes a Native person is going to struggle against that person because they represent a threat to their unequal rights to welfare state benefits So the welfare state is fundamentally a system of unequal rights, and we should not allow the welfare statists To get away with claiming to be for equality. They are in fact Implicit advocates of nationalism and racism My final point Which was touched on very briefly and I think deserves more emphasis Is the question of state provision whenever you have state provision you will generate some kind of conflict When we think about this, it's important to exercise our imagination and think of education without a state monopoly When we focus on access to place at state universities, for example We limit ourselves to understanding education in one institutional form But the market is capable of providing a wide variety of different forms And it is important for us if we are to advance a liberal vision of social justice to also demonstrate and show to the public the way in which Free association and the market can create new opportunities for people That we are not limited to just one system the university and that will be private or state or subsidized or not But if we have a truly free market in education, there is a wide range of different ways of learning If you want to learn another language, you don't have to go to university if you want to learn to play jazz music You don't have to go to university The market already has ways of providing these goods these forms of education and we should liberate the market to provide Education that competes with the traditional state system, or I should say the traditional system That has been seized by the state over the last 200 years So again in conclusion, I thought the paper was very good and quite provocative And I hope I've only highlighted a few things that perhaps deserve some further thought. Thank you Well, thank you Tom for these very clear and very shooed statements And I would like to comment briefly. I have only a few minutes time First I still think that we can distinguish in a society two major groups one Which are those who are privileged by all kinds of rules and those who are probably losing their privileges at the expense of giving it to some others although Directors law initiated by George Stigler Means that there is a transfer between the so-called classes of a society But nevertheless if you analyze these two three or four classes, it still boils down to those Who get something at the expense of someone else? That's the way it is The second thing is that My discussant mentioned that justice as a touch stone Which I think is an interesting thing But nevertheless we have to consider that justice is by all means a moral concept and ought to be confined To human conduct that means in other words that justice as well as ethics Aesthetics or any other form of morality is exposed to changes over time Justice is not an eternal and nor is it an absolute value It is a value only for those who appreciate that it is just that apparently is unjust So the idea is to have it as a touchstone is of course exposed to an ever-changing moral belief of course we have that was the third point we have Rights social rights human rights and all other kinds of rights, but my questions still prevails as far as I can think Namely who determines these rights? We need to have an institution who determine what is a human right and what is not when is Something right or when is it going to be a law? We have to have that institution I guess we can only say justice ought to be confined to human conduct In other words, we cannot allow an institution to tell us when is what right? On the other hand there was a point made that They are The the market is reacting to an exclusive state in education for things. Yes, that is correct But nevertheless the state reserves for me a very irritating thing the right to Make or to control the rules It is not that I am very concerned about the provider of education I am very much concerned of who has the control over the provider Let me give you an example if we have a private institution or private university Which gives you all the education you might get but it is not Approved by the state you still can have a private Institution which has no value whatsoever the state controls the rules and that is my concern not who is the provider So please let me correct that maybe it didn't come out as clear the last thing is that I cannot read my handwriting here How can Probably there was a question related to how can we achieve? I just stumbled over my things as a just society without distributing these things First and foremost, of course, we have to go back in the Lockean argument who Gains something who has then property and so on and so forth that would take me much too long but what I'm saying is that the welfare state apparently was institutionalized in order to Reform or Undo the Established distribution of wealth Therefore I began my paper with saying that it is an appeal on even envy or other Very odd things which are used to be banned in our society We cannot really say that something is just we have to say Subjectively yes, it might be considered just but not necessarily as an absolute value. Thank you Tom one last word The meds I think distributive justice requires that the next speakers be allowed their time So I will yield Yeah