Monday, December 30, 2019

Time Value Of Money Paper - 1354 Words

Time Value of Money Paper In order to understand how to deal with money the important idea to know is the time value of money. Time Value of Money (TVM) is the simple concept that a dollar that someone has now is worth more than the dollar that person will receive in the future, this is because the money that the person holds today is worth more because it can be invested and earn interest (Web Finance, Inc., 2007). The following paper will explain how annuities affect TVM problems and investment outcomes. The issues that impact TCM will also be discussed: Interest rates and compounding (with two problems), present value, future value, opportunity cost, annuities and the rule of 72. The idea of TVM allows managers or investors the†¦show more content†¦Interest = p x i x n = 50,000 x .05 x (60/360) = 416.667 A compound interest occurs when the money earns interest on itself (Brealey, Myers Marcus, 2003). Compound interest is calculated each period on the original principal and all interest accumulated during past periods. Although the interest may be stated as a yearly rate, the compounding periods can be yearly, semiannually, quarterly, or even continuously (Getobjects.com, 2004). So in order to understand this, another problem can be solved: $50,000 is borrowed for two years at 6% annual interest. Interest year 1 = p x i x n = $50,000 x .06 x 1 = $3,000 Interest year 2 = (p1 + i1) x i x n = ($50,000 + $3,000) x .06 x 1 = $3,180 The total compounded interest over two years is $3,000 + $3,180 = $6,180. Money has a time value and the value today of future cash flow is referred to as the present value (Brealey, Myers Marcus, 2003). The present value of a future amount is worth less the longer one waits for it (Brealey, Myers Marcus, 2003). The future value is the amount of money that an investment made today (the present value) will grow to by some future date. Since money has time value, we naturally expect the future value to be greater than the present value. The difference between the two depends on the number of compounding periods involved and the interest (discount) rate (Getobjects.com, 2004). In order to calculate each of theseShow MoreRelatedTime Value of Money Paper1411 Words   |  6 PagesTime Value of Money Paper In order to understand how to deal with money the important idea to know is the time value of money. Time Value of Money (TVM) is the simple concept that a dollar that someone has now is worth more than the dollar that person will receive in the future, this is because the money that the person holds today is worth more because it can be invested and earn interest (Web Finance, Inc., 2007). The following paper will explain how annuities affect TVM problems and investmentRead MoreWhat ´s a Barter Practice?1015 Words   |  4 PagesMoney is a medium that can be exchanged for goods and services. It is also a measure of an effort made by an individual person, or a group of people. To be more specific, the money could be used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, and a store of value. People in the past did their best in order to have an acceptable life. For instance, they hunted foods, harvested crops, and their shelters were built by them. Each person was specialized for one as pect, such as building a house, selling differentRead MoreDefinition of Money and Its Uses1579 Words   |  6 Pagesï » ¿An Analysis of Money and How it Works For a definition of money and where it comes from, one could turn to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, which states that the Congress shall have the Power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and fix the standards of weights and measures. But if such a definition fails to get to the heart of what money is, one could turn to Adam Smith, author of Wealth of Nations, who wrote that money has become in all civilized nations the universalRead MoreMoney Market1247 Words   |  5 PagesMONEY MARKET As money became a commodity, the money market became a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. Trading in the money markets is done over the counter, is wholesale. Various instruments exist, such as Treasury bills, commercial paper, bankers acceptances, deposits, certificates of deposit, bills of exchange, repurchase agreements, federal funds, and short-lived mortgage-Read MoreEvaluation Of A Multi Grade Special Education Classroom1204 Words   |  5 Pagescount coins, bills and mixed coins and bills over several days. Instruction and practice will be completed with preinstructional activities to review and instruct students on coins and paper currency. The fourth day of instruction will include counting mixed coins and bills. Goal of Instruction Given play money, students will count mixed coins and bills accurately to and provide the correct change when pretending to be a cashier. Students will be expected to score at least 80% on the writtenRead MoreThe Federal Reserve Bank and Monetary Values 1295 Words   |  5 PagesMonetary values have changed throughout history because problems presented in each system of commerce. Bartering was among the earliest forms of commerce to present a problem. It did not establish monetary value in anything specific, allowing an individual’s wants or needs to be deemed monetary values. Each seller could make exchange requests based on different things. For example, a starving man could deem grain a commodity if he only manufactures luxury goods. Based on his hunger, the starvingRead MoreHistory Of Colonial New England Colonial Policy Essay1564 Words   |  7 PagesColonial paper money is perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of colonial America in the 1700s. The lack of spec ie in the colonies is a well documented phenomenon and, in New England it’s effect was heavy, and led to the issuance of paper money. This paper will investigate the successful implementation of paper currency as endogenous money to grow colonial money supply and stimulate economic activity in the early American economy. Additionally this paper will argue loss of faith in the governmentsRead MoreEconomics Of The Gold Standard Debate963 Words   |  4 Pagesfinancial system and the economy during this time. The reason we abandoned the Gold Standard was because of the crisis our country and many others were in. The Gold Standard began in 1870 in Britain, which ironically was the first country to go off of it in 1931. The United Stated adopted this policy in 1913, this guaranteed the amount of paper money you had could be returned to the government for the amount it is worth in gold. This made paper money actually worth something to citizens living inRead MoreThe Characteristics Of North American Currency1497 Words   |  6 PagesHave we always known the distinct characteristics of North American currency? The dollar bills and coins we use today have been through many changes in appearance and value. Paper and metals have been the appearance of most currency. The change of currency went through early colonial period, colonial period, Antebellum period, Civil War period and the Reconstruction period to finally establish what we now know as American Currency. The separation of our country did not represent unity or form forRead MoreCosts Within Business : Business1170 Words   |  5 PagesC osts Within Business YourFirstName YourLastName University title                      Costs within Business Student’s Name Institutional Affiliations Date                                           Contents Costs within Business. 2 Introduction. 2 Purpose of the paper. 3 The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms. 4 Cost Estimation in Project Planning. 4 Cost Modelling Challenges. 5 Bad Costs by Forbes. 5 References. 7       Costs within Business. Introduction Business makes up the most vital part of any economy

Sunday, December 22, 2019

Why Was Africa Colonised - 1882 Words

Why was Africa colonised in the years 1870-1914? The Colonization of Africa was due to a wide range of factors, not only economic and political but also for social, religious, humanitarian and technological reasons, which differed from country to country. Africa’s diplomatic, strategic and material potential led European Powers to seize the opportunity to exploit a new continent. During a period between 1870 and 1914, where the continent of Africa was completely annexed by the leading European powers: Britain, France, Germany, Portugal and Italy, leaving just two countries with independence: Ethiopia and Liberia. The interest in Africa begun before 1870. Britain and France were the first European powers to show interest in Africa’s†¦show more content†¦Britain occupied Egypt in 1882 to ensure that the Suez Canal was protected from any rivals, as it was fundamental in trading with India. Likewise, Cape Colony was occupied to ensure it remained under British control. The western coast of Africa provided strate gic locations for securing trade for other European nations, and places for refuelling navies. Secondly, expansion into Africa provided an opportunity not just to maintain and protect trade routes, but also to create new ones that ran throughout Africa. Britain wanted to establish a trade route that ran from Cape Colony to the Suez Canal, and they therefore needed to colonise countries that lay in-between. The ‘scramble for Africa’ can be seen as based partly on the desire to gain strategic locations within the country that would enhance and secure trade with the rest of the world, and again bring economic advantages. This factor also explains to some extent why there was a ‘scramble’, as each European country wanted to ensure that they acquired the countries that would help their trade, before another European power had the chance. It was a widely held belief in Europe, that imperialism could help ease political and domestic tensions, reflected when Cecil Rhodes said: ‘if you want to avoid civil war, you must be an imperialist’ . This can be seen as a motive for gaining colonies in Africa therefore. In Germany, social unrest loomed as a result of growingShow MoreRelatedThe Following Three Concepts Describe How the World Has Been Divided According to the Levels of Development. Discuss the Origins and Validity of These Concepts: Third World/South, North (West/First World), Development1524 Words   |  7 Pagesworld and first world will be named. Factors affecting the development in the third world will be identified. Third world/South , North (West/First world) and Development Third World /South countries are the developing countries. Third world was a term originally used to distinguish nations that were involved during the cold war. Third world countries are the developing countries or poor countries but today the term is used to show nations with the smallest UN Human Development index (HDI)Read MoreThe Creation Of The British Colonial Empire1475 Words   |  6 PagesThe creation of the British colonial empire was one of the great facts of history. For the Empire, Britain took a larger share than any other nation in developing the movement of people between continents; it also has changed the expansion of Whites, Blacks and Indians. By exporting outside its borders, together with its colonists, civilization, language, and institutions, it contributed mightily to the vast movement of Westernization of the world. Many historians debate on how the empire began.Read MoreThe Political Position Of Developed Western Countries847 Words   |  4 PagesAfricans even before colonial rule was established† (Thomson, 2000: 19). To further use Thomson’s writing in order to examine the case study I will be doing about Burundi, we have to acknowledge that when Africans were captured and made into slaves, it destroyed local and political and social formation. And the fact that the people who could have contributed to the economical advancement of Africa were sent to work in Europe, means that imperial powers underdeveloped Africa by stealing their labour forceRead MoreAustrali A Developed Country With A Good Health System And South Africa Developing Country868 Words   |  4 Pageswhere both countries have been colonized at some point in time by another country that is technologically advanced, it leaves me with a question. Why then is one country more stable in its Health status whilst the other is struggling?.This document will focus on the comparison of Australia, a developed country with a good health system and South Africa a developing country that needs more attention in public health interventio ns. 2. WHAT IS PUBLIC HEALTH? The World Health Organisation (WHO) definesRead MoreA Postcolonial Perspective On An International Level1505 Words   |  7 PagesThe fear of Ebola has prompted some interesting behaviour around the world. Reportedly the disease that started in Africa is now with increasing frequency equated with all inhabitants of the continent as well as everybody who looks similar. By now Ebola is â€Å"reviving imagery of the Dark Continent† (Wright/CNN 2014) in several media outlets which leads to the question if Public Relations campaigns that are dealing with the topic on an international level further encourage that trend. As professionalRead MoreRostow s Theory Of Economic Growth997 Words   |  4 Pagesin use is also described as ‘pre-Newtonian’. Examples of such societies include Medieval Europe and Chinese dynasties. The second stage, preconditions for take-off, is explained as encompassing nations with a more stable political base. This stage was clearly established in Western Europe in the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century, as scientific advancements and continued industrialisation had aided agriculture and the capital market to thrive. The next stage is the actual takeRead MoreReview Of Dethroning The Harvest From Blaineys A Short History Of The World 1509 Words   |  7 Pagesfirst piece of the text, and summarises the differences between then and now. Whilst billions of people still live below the breadline in places like Sub-Saharan Africa, South-East Asia, and Latin America (Shah, 2013), the spread of wealth has changed in a way that we are able to track the changes by consumption. The countries colonised by European countries that were noted by Blainey and Crone as having been struggling with food are, from the 1800’s onwards, generally some of the best fed peopleRead MoreThe Height Of Colonialism Between The 18th And 20th Century2818 Words   |  12 PagesDuring the height of colonialism between the 17th and 20th century, almost all of Asia was at one point either directly taken as a colonial possession, or was strongly influenced politically and economically by a colonial power. The exception to this was Siam (now Thailand) which has remained largely independent despite colonial pressure on all its borders (with the exception of the concession of what is now Laos and Burma). For the sake of brevity and consistency, this essay will only be dealingRead MoreCritical Commentary of Frantz Fanon925 Words   |  4 Pagesand the world do not correspond, and asking how Fanon, the revolutionary, would think and act in the period of retrogression.† A complete study of 1968 and its legacies in Europe can not solely deal with events that occurred on the continent. 1968 was, in fact, a â€Å"global phenomenon†; with ideas perpetrated in Europe reaching as far as Mexico, China, and India, but to name a few . The beginning of this mutualistic relationship between â€Å"New Left† groups on different continents (which spawned the revolutionaryRead MoreWhy is Africa so under-developed?1653 Words   |  7 PagesAfrica is the world’s second largest continent and the second most populated continent behind Asia. Africa is the poorest and the most undeveloped continent in the world, and is commonly referred to as a ‘Third World Continent’. The term ‘Third World’ came around during the Cold War to classify countries/continents that remained self-governing with a capitalist or communist government. This definition allows us to categorise the nations of the world into three groups based on social, political

Saturday, December 14, 2019

A Starry Night Free Essays

Vincent Van Gogh is a mysterious painting in which Gogh paints a picture that has energetic colors and expressive. This painting can be described as shadowy but yet still stimulating. It can signify a variety of moods, objects, and atmosphere. We will write a custom essay sample on A Starry Night or any similar topic only for you Order Now Van Gogh portrays a small French town located in the countryside. This town is characterized by rolling mountains, a sky with stars, small village, fields, a large tree, and a church. He uses these details to paint a story full of color and intrigue. He paints the sky purple and dark blue to signify the time of day. He uses orange and yellow for the bright stars or lighting in the sky. The mountains that border the town are colored a dark blue and are masked by a tree, which is colored black. Green is applied for the grass and other various plants and vegetation. He uses a vast array of colors to paint the houses and buildings in the village. For this painting mood and description play a huge part. The evening sky is exposed with light shining through the sky. One person might think that the stars are dashing down to earth, meaning it could be the end of the world. He shows the beauty of the countryside at night. Looking up at the sky the bright, yellowish-white stars twirl and give the effect that the wind is blowing. The wind itself is blowing fast and swift, it could be showing an emotion he was feeling. Right below the sky is the mountains that surround the village. Their presence brings security and harmony to the French village. The mountains provide a shadow and guard from a distance. Being a man of religion Gogh painted a church in the center of the painting which can simply be symbolized as a place for reaching out to God. With the use of its colors, type of texture, and descriptive objects, Van Gogh develops a unique painting that any observer can interpret in any way. It can be an image of finding peace as you can sit down and find the beauty of the landscape. Or it can be seen as a dark sad image; you can simply sit down and find that the location is cold and windy. I find it to be peaceful and perfect. How to cite A Starry Night, Papers

Friday, December 6, 2019

Theories of Justice free essay sample

Theory of Justice is a work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls. It was originally published in 1971 and revised in both 1975 (for the translated editions) and 1999. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society) by utilising a variant of the familiar device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known as Justice as Fairness, from which Rawls derives his two principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle. Objective In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice, inspired by David Hume, and a fair choice situation for parties facing such circumstances, similar to some of Immanuel Kants views. Principles of justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties are recognized to face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic. They have ends which they seek to advance, but prefer to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favoured principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and right-libertarian accounts. A society, according to Utilitarianism, is just to the extent that its laws and institutions are such as to promote the greatest overall or average happiness of its members. How do we determine the aggregate, or overall, happiness of the members of a society? This would seem to present a real problem. For happiness is not, like temperature or weight, directly measurable by any means that we have available. So utilitarians must approach the matter indirectly. They will have to rely on indirect measures, in other words. What would these be, and how can they be identified? The raditional idea at this point is to rely upon (a) a theory of the human good (i. e. , of what is good for human beings, of what is required for them to flourish) and (b) an account of the social conditions and forms of organization essential to the realization of that good. People, of course, do not agree on what kind of life would be the most desirable. Intellectuals, artists, ministers, politicians, corporate bu reaucrats, financiers, soldiers, athletes, salespersons, workers: all these different types of people, and more besides, will certainly not agree completely on what is a happy, satisfying, or desirable life. Very likely they will disagree on some quite important points. All is not lost, however. For there may yet be substantial agreementenough, anyway, for the purposes of a theory of justice about the general conditions requisite to human flourishing in all these otherwise disparate kinds of life. First of all there are at minimum certain basic needs that must be satisfied in any desirable kind of life. Basic needs, says James Sterba, are those needs that must be satisfied in order not to seriously endanger a persons mental or physical well-being. Basic needs, if not satisfied, lead to lacks and deficiencies with respect to a standard of mental and physical well-being. A persons needs for food, shelter, medical care, protection, companionship, and self-development are, at least in part, needs of this sort. [Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. , 1995). A basic-needs minimum, then, is the minimum wherewithal required for a person to m eet his or her basic needs. Such needs are universal. People will be alike in having such needs, however much they diverge in regard to the other needs, desires, or ends that they may have. We may develop this common ground further by resorting to some of Aristotles ideas on this question of the nature of a happy and satisfying life. Aristotle holds that humans are rational beings and that a human life is essentially rational activity, by which he means that human beings live their lives by making choices on the basis of reasons and then acting on those choices. All reasoning about what to do proceeds from premises relating to the agents beliefs and desires. Desire is the motive for action and the practical syllogism (Aristotles label for the reasoning by which people decide what to do) is its translation into choice. Your choices are dictated by your beliefs and desiresprovided you are rational. Such choices, the reasoning that leads to them, and the actions that result from them are what Aristotle chiefly means by the sort of rational activity that makes up a human life. We may fairly sum up this point of view by saying that people are rational end-choosers. If Aristotle is at all on the right track, then it is clear that a basic-needs minimum is a prerequisite to any desirable kind of life, and further that to live a desirable kind of life a person must be free to determine his or her own ends and have the wherewithalthe means, the opportunitiesto have a realistic chance of achieving those ends. (Some of these Aristotelian points are perhaps implicitly included in Sterbas list of basic needs, under the head of self-development. ) So w hat does all this do for Utilitarianism? Quite a lot. We have filled in some of item (a) above: the theory of the human good, the general conditions essential to a happy or desirable life. The Utilitarian may plausibly claim to be trying to promote the overall happiness of people in his society, therefore, when he tries to improve such things as rate of employment, per capita income, distribution of wealth and opportunity, the amount of leisure, general availability and level of education, poverty rates, social mobility, and the like. The justification for thinking these things relevant should be pretty plain. They are measures of the amount and the distribution of the means and opportunities by which people can realize their various conception of a desirable life. With these things clearly in mind the Utilitarian is in a position to argue about item (b), the sorts of social arrangements that will deliver the means and opportunities for people to achieve their conception of a desirable life. John Stuart Mill, one of the three most important 19th century Utilitarians (the other two were Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick), argued that freedom or liberty, both political and economic, were indispensable requisites for happiness. Basing his view upon much the same interpretation of human beings and human life as Aristotle, Mill argued that democracy and the basic political libertiesfreedom of speech (and the press), of assembly, of worshipwere essential to the happiness of rational end-choosers; for without them they would be prevented from effectively pursuing their own conception of a good and satisfying life. Similarly he argued that some degree of economic prosperitywealthwas indispensable to having a realistic chance of living such a life, of realizing ones ends. So, ccording to Utilitarianism, the just society should be so organized in its institutionsits government, its laws, and its economythat as many people as possible shall have the means and opportunity to achieve their chosen conception of a desirable life. To reform the institutions of ones society toward this goal, in the utilitarian view, is to pursue greater justice. In the 19th century utilitarians often argued for a laissez faire capitalist economy. More recently some of them have argued for a mixed economy, i. e. , a state regulated market system. Mill, interestingly, argued at the beginning of the 19th century for an unregulated capitalist economy, but at the end argued for a socialist economy (which is not the same thing as a mixed economy). (3) The protection of the sorts of liberties that were guaranteed in the United States  Ã‚   by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. (4) Democratic forms of government generally. The utilitarian rationale for each of these institutional arrangements should be fairly obvious, but it would probably contribute significantly to our understanding of utilitarianism to review, in more detail, some utilitarian arguments for (2) free market capitalism. This we shall do later, in the next section. Three Theories of Justice: Utilitarianism, Justice as Fairness, and Libertarianism (1) Utilitarianism A society, according to Utilitarianism, is just to the extent that its laws and institutions are such as to promote the greatest overall or average happiness of its members. How do we determine the aggregate, or overall, happiness of the members of a society? This would seem to present a real problem. For happiness is not, like temperature or weight, directly measurable by any means that we have available. So utilitarians must approach the matter indirectly. They will have to rely on indirect measures, in other words. What would these be, and how can they be identified? The traditional idea at this point is to rely upon (a) a theory of the human good (i. e. of what is good for human beings, of what is required for them to flourish) and (b) an account of the social conditions and forms of organization essential to the realization of that good. People, of course, do not agree on what kind of life would be the most desirable. Intellectuals, artists, ministers, politicians, corporate bureaucrats, financiers, soldiers, athletes, salespersons, workers: all these different types of people, and more besides, will certainly not agree completely on what is a happy , satisfying, or desirable life. Very likely they will disagree on some quite important points. All is not lost, however. For there may yet be substantial agreementenough, anyway, for the purposes of a theory of justice about the general conditions requisite to human flourishing in all these otherwise disparate kinds of life. First of all there are at minimum certain basic needs that must be satisfied in any desirable kind of life. Basic needs, says James Sterba, are those needs that must be satisfied in order not to seriously endanger a persons mental or physical well-being. Basic needs, if not satisfied, lead to lacks and deficiencies with respect to a standard of mental and physical well-being. A persons needs for food, shelter, medical care, protection, companionship, and self-development are, at least in part, needs of this sort. [Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. , 1995). A basic-needs minimum, then, is the minimum wherewithal required for a person to m eet his or her basic needs. Such needs are universal. People will be alike in having such needs, however much they diverge in regard to the other needs, desires, or ends that they may have. We may develop this common ground further by resorting to some of Aristotles ideas on this question of the nature of a happy and satisfying life. Aristotle holds that humans are rational beings and that a human life is essentially rational activity, by which he means that human beings live their lives by making choices on the basis of reasons and then acting on those choices. All reasoning about what to do proceeds from premises relating to the agents beliefs and desires. Desire is the motive for action and the practical syllogism (Aristotles label for the reasoning by which people decide what to do) is its translation into choice. Your choices are dictated by your beliefs and desiresprovided you are rational. Such choices, the reasoning that leads to them, and the actions that result from them are what Aristotle chiefly means by the sort of rational activity that makes up a human life. We may fairly sum up this point of view by saying that people are rational end-choosers. If Aristotle is at all on the right track, then it is clear that a basic-needs minimum is a prerequisite to any desirable kind of life, and further that to live a desirable kind of life a person must be free to determine his or her own ends and have the wherewithalthe means, the opportunitiesto have a realistic chance of achieving those ends. (Some of these Aristotelian points are perhaps implicitly included in Sterbas list of basic needs, under the head of self-development. ) So w hat does all this do for Utilitarianism? Quite a lot. We have filled in some of item (a) above: the theory of the human good, the general conditions essential to a happy or desirable life. The Utilitarian may plausibly claim to be trying to promote the overall happiness of people in his society, therefore, when he tries to improve such things as rate of employment, per capita income, distribution of wealth and opportunity, the amount of leisure, general availability and level of education, poverty rates, social mobility, and the like. The justification for thinking these things relevant should be pretty plain. They are measures of the amount and the distribution of the means and opportunities by which people can realize their various conception of a desirable life. With these things clearly in mind the Utilitarian is in a position to argue about item (b), the sorts of social arrangements that will deliver the means and opportunities for people to achieve their conception of a desirable life. John Stuart Mill, one of the three most important 19th century Utilitarians (the other two were Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick), argued that freedom or liberty, both political and economic, were indispensable requisites for happiness. Basing his view upon much the same interpretation of human beings and human life as Aristotle, Mill argued that democracy and the basic political libertiesfreedom of speech (and the press), of assembly, of worshipwere essential to the happiness of rational end-choosers; for without them they would be prevented from effectively pursuing their own conception of a good and satisfying life. Similarly he argued that some degree of economic prosperitywealthwas indispensable to having a realistic chance of living such a life, of realizing ones ends. So, ccording to Utilitarianism, the just society should be so organized in its institutionsits government, its laws, and its economythat as many people as possible shall have the means and opportunity to achieve their chosen conception of a desirable life. To reform the institutions of ones society toward this goal, in the utilitarian view, is to pursue greater justice. In the 19th century utilitarians often argued for a laissez faire capitalist economy. More recently some of them have argued for a mixed economy, i. e. , a state regulated market system. Mill, interestingly, argued at the beginning of the 19th century for an unregulated capitalist economy, but at the end argued for a socialist economy (which is not the same thing as a mixed economy). (3) The protection of the sorts of liberties that were guaranteed in the United States  Ã‚   by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. (4) Democratic forms of government generally. The utilitarian rationale for each of these institutional arrangements should be fairly obvious, but it would probably contribute significantly to our understanding of utilitarianism to review, in more detail, some utilitarian arguments for (2) free market capitalism. This we shall do later, in the next section. What do you think a Utilitarian would say about universal medical care? Would he or she be for it or against it? What about affirmative action programs, anti-hate crime legislation, welfare, a graduated income tax, anti-trust laws? For or against? What would decide the issue for a utilitarian? (2) Utilitarianism and Competitive Capitalism The key claim about market capitalism for the utilitarian is that free, unregulated markets efficiently allocate resourceschiefly labor and capitalin the production of goods. By a market is meant only any pattern of economic activity in which buyers do business with sellers. In the classical system of economics competition is presupposed among producers or sellers. Toward the end of the nineteenth century writers began to make explicit hat competition required that there be a considerable number of sellers in any trade or industry in informed communication with each other. In more recent times this has been crystallized into the notion of many sellers doing business with many buyers. Each is well informed as to the prices at which others are selling and buyingthere is a going price of which everyone is aware. Most important of all, no buyer or seller is large enough to control or exercise an appreciable influence on the common price. The notion of efficiency as applied to an economic system is many-sided. It can be viewed merely as a matter of getting the most for the least. There is also the problem of getting the particular things that are wanted by the community in the particular amounts in which they are wanted. In addition, if an economy is to be efficient some reasonably full use must be made of the available, or at least the willing, labor supply. There must be some satisfactory allocation of resources between present and future productionbetween what is produced for consumption and what is invested in new plant and processes to enlarge future consumption. There must also be appropriate incentive to change; the adoption of new and more efficient methods of production must be encouraged. Finallya somewhat different requirement and one that went long unrecognizedthere must be adequate provision for the research and technological development which brings new methods and new products into existence. All this makes a large bill of requirements. Rawlss Theory of Justice as Fairness The reformulation of Utilitarianism we just saw comes from John Rawls, who did not present it as a version of Utilitarianism at all. He presented it as a first approximation to a quite distinct conception of justice from Utilitarianism, a conception that he calls Justice as Fairness. I presented Rawlss idea as a reformulation of Utilitarianism, anyway, because it seems to me to be greatly clarifying of whats wrong with Utilitarianism to have an alternative to compare it to, an alternative that blocks the kinds of fairness objections that are typically raised against Utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism everyone, in a way, is given equal consideration at the outset inasmuch as everyones happiness is taken into consideration and is given the same weight in the reasoning by which a form of social organization is settled on as the one that, in the circumstances, yields the greatest average utility. But, as we saw, Utilitarianism may in some circumstances settle on a form of social organization that treats some people unfairly, by imposing undue burdens on them for the sake of the greater average utility or happiness of the whole social group. In the light of this fact it is reasonable to conclude that something is wrong with the Utilitarian procedure for weighing the interests of the individual members of the social group in deciding on what forms of social organization best serve those interests. The procedure puts individuals at and undesirable and unfair risk of being sacrificed for the overall social good. In the principle that we suggested as a revision of Utilitarianism, people would not be put at quite the same risk. Rawls in fact argues for a more elaborate principle of justice in social organization, one that we havent seen yet, and he does so by employing a hypothetical model of a situation requiring people to choose the fundamental principles by which the basic institutions of their society are to be evaluated and organized. He argues that in the hypothetical conditions under which the choice of principles is to be made, only fair or just principles can be chosen. He argues that this is so because of the hypothetical conditions he imposes on the situation of the people making the choice. Then he argues that under those conditions people would choose the following conjunction of principles: The Equal Liberty Principle: Each person is to have the maximum civil liberties compatible with the same liberty for all. The Difference Principle: Inequalities are permissible only if (a) they can be expected to work to everyones advantage, especially to the advantage of the least well off, and (b) the positions, offices, roles, to which the inequalities attach are open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Libertarianism The Libertarianism, as the name suggests, emphasizes individual liberty as the central and indeed exclusive concern of social justice. A just society, according to the Libertarian, must grant and protect the liberty or freedom of each individual to pursue his desired ends. In the Libertarian view people are essentially rational end-choosers, to use our earlier term, and the kind of life appropriate to rational end-choosers requires them to be free to choose their own ends and free to pursue them without interference from others. This may seem to imply that the Libertarian holds that everyone should be able to do whatever he or she wants, but really the Libertarian holds no such view. The Libertarian view is that each person should have the same freedom to pursue his chosen ends, that each is therefore obligated to refrain from interfering with others in their freedom to pursue their ends, and that the function of the state is solely to protect each individuals freedom to pursue his chosen ends. The Libertarian therefore conceives of everyone as having certain rights, which protect his or her liberty to pursue a desirable kind of life. What is distinctive about Libertarianism is its conception of the rights that each individual has. The libertarian philosopher John Hospers states the fundamental libertarian principle in a variety of ways that it may clarify the Libertarian view to repeat here. He says (in The Libertarian Manifesto, reprinted in Justice: Alternative Political Perspectives, edited by James P. Sterba, Third Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999), pp. 24, 25): [E]very person is the owner of his own life[;] no one is the owner of any one elses life,  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   and consequently every human being has the right to act in accordance with his own choices, unless those actions infringe on the equal liberty of other human beings to act in accordance with their choices No one is anyone elses master and no one is anyone elses slave. Other mens lives are not yours to dispose of. The rights recognized by the Libertarian include all the rights we called civil or personal liberties in our discussion of Rawls, but in regard to property the Libertarian favors a scheme in which each person has a quite unrestricted right to acquire property, including full capitalist rights to acquire ownership of the means of production and full rights of bequeathal. Libertarians emphasize property rights as essential to the liberty essential to the life of a rational end-chooser. Property does not mean only real estate; it includes anything that you can call your ownclothing, your car, your jewelry, your books and papers. The right of property is not the right to just take it from others, for this would interfere with their property rights. It is rather the right to work for it, to obtain non-coercively the money or services which you can present in voluntary exchanges.