Fairness Obligations and Non-acceptance of Benefits

George Klosko

Political Studies, 2014, vol. 62, issue 1, 159-171

Abstract: type="main">

It is widely held that an adequate theory of political obligation must be general; that is, it must establish requirements to obey the law for all or virtually all members of a given population. In regard to the principle of fairness (or fair play), generality poses a challenge, because many people claim not to want or to accept major benefits provided by the state. However, because the most important state benefits are public goods and so received even if they are not accepted, the implications of not accepting these benefits differ from those of not accepting excludable goods. Because of complex psychological aspects of rejecting non-excludable goods, rejecting such benefits frees recipients of obligations they would otherwise have only if they can pass an ‘alternative test’, and so explain how they would manage if rejection of the benefits actually prevented their receipt.

Date: 2014
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-9248.12024 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:polstu:v:62:y:2014:i:1:p:159-171

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0032-3217

Access Statistics for this article

Political Studies is currently edited by Matthew Festenstein and Martin Smith

More articles in Political Studies from Political Studies Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().