Nami Arora What Do We Deserve Summary

In “What Do We Deserve?” Namit Arora compares three different approaches to distributive economic justice: the libertarian, meritocratic, and egalitarian models. In the United States, media and culture play an integral role in forming our understanding of “what we deserve.” As Arora observes, “[The United States] is under a self-destructive meritocratic spell that see social outcomes as moral desert.” (91) Perhaps repurposed or rebranded, the American dream nevertheless has changed very little over the past two hundred and fifty years: work hard and you will succeed. This is the ethos of our nation. The idealism of this sentiment, however, fails to appreciate the significant impact of inequalities of opportunity. Personally, the high school

I went to prepared us for the SATS as early as junior year. However, peers of mine from lower socioeconomic communities did not receive so much as a study guide for standardized tests. The ubiquitous propagation that working hard will always lead to success ultimately derides the citizens in our nation who, born to poverty or without ample means to realize their full potential, fail to achieve the “American dream.”
Idealistically, the libertarian model seems like an entirely fair approach that rewards individual drive and hard work.

However, as Arora notes, “in practice, people don’t have real equality of opportunity due to various disadvantages.” (87) In America, the richest socioeconomic income group owns a staggering 84 % of the nation’s wealth. (91) Moreover, “a kid from the poorest fifth of all households has a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percentile income bracket, while a kid from the richest fifth has a 22 percent chance.” (91) Clearly, this is not a feasible model. Comparatively, the egalitarian model Arora discusses—while far more equitable and utilitarian—undermines the moral deserts of achievement that are quintessential to the very fabric of our nation. Therefore, I find a mixture between the libertarian and meritocratic approach to be the most just. Not only does the model account for person achievement, but also places a premium on equality of

opportunity.
The Libertarian model is one of which “distributive justice favors a free market with well-defined rules that apply to all” (Arora 87). In other words, hard work yields high rewards. However with such disparities between the socioeconomic backgrounds, educational opportunities, I feel that the initial leveling of the playing field is needed. This is accomplished through the meritocratic model with “head start programs, education and job training, subsidized healthcare, housing and so forth” (88). However the help should not solely be limited to being provided by the government, nor should it only helping out the “less fortunate,” it should be available to anybody who is willing to put in the hard work, regardless of status.
We deserve what we earn from our hard work, be it success or failure. This is where the difference principle fails, the opportunities provided by the “natural lottery” shouldn’t be downplayed, rather supported, if that’s what will be successful in the market. The Libertarian model described by Michael Sandel is one which, “citizens are assured equal basic liberties, and the distribution of income and wealth is determined by the free market” (qtd, 870). The fact that we get what we work for and as long as everyone has the opportunity to reach for their goals, than what someone receives as a reward is a direct reflection of how hard they worked for it.
Arora is a good example of why one who is already advantaged, might still need help. Even though he states that he “was born into the upper-caste, riding on eons of unearned privilege over 80 percent of my fellow Indians. I was also a boy raised in a society that lavished far more attention on male students…” (87), he still needed the help of “financial aid from a U.S. university” (87). His story might have ended had he not received the help, despite the advantages he started with. I believe that it was his work ethic, combined with opportunities that allowed him to become the success that he is.
Where the Egalitarian model fails the model enables the irresponsible or abuse of opportunistic aid, simply because one has a lower income than others. These ideas remove the incentive for hard work and the drive to overcome adversity, since nothing is required to gain these advantages, they become entitled, rather than deserved. In the Libertarian-Meritocratic blend, it’s your effort that affords you the help you need, which shouldn’t be seen as “handouts” due to the fact that it is a privilege that was worked for, a reward for hard work.
It’s simply a fact of life that there will be those that are born with advantages and those that are born disadvantaged. The programs that offer help to those that would earn them by striving towards marketable goals would do well to offset those disadvantages. It’s also a simple fact that the motivation to lift oneself up by their bootstraps and overcome adversity is not something that everybody possesses, and failure isn’t something that should be prevented by government interaction. While it may seem unfair, the reality of failure is a motivator to succeed, to see others who have elevated themselves from disparity to prosperity by their own labors and effort is a motivator to those who are initially disadvantaged.
Equal liberties for all is the platform of our nation, however it is not reflected in actual life.

A great deal of the population not nearly as advantaged as the other, than they think they are set up for failure and are set at an unfair disadvantage. There is always going to be a natural advantage to be had, be it social, societal, gender, or genetic, everyone is at different point in their lives. Starting off disadvantaged is not an excuse to give up, in fact I do not think there is a better motivator for improvement. Americans as a whole, love the underdog story, the “Rocky” or the “Rudy”, somebody who has come from nothing, and by sheer hard work and determination has taken what they deserve. In reality, this rarely exists outside of movies, however if we provide the opportunities for our real life Rocky’s to take what is theirs, to know that with that extra push, they could come out even more successful than anyone else. It all comes back to the common phrase, “you get what you work for.” when it comes to letting everyone having equal liberties and letting the amount of work that they put in determine their success, than I think that it is a completely fair model economic

model.
The question of “what do we deserve” is straight forward, you deserve what you earn. The difficult question is how do you offset disadvantages that are naturally a part of life, as fairly as possible? The libertarian idea to let free-market determine what is successful in addition the meritocratic model of improving the opportunities to assist those in reaching their goals is the most just. Instilling the idea that if you’re a productive member of society, if you work hard, the American dream of earning what you deserve would be the most beneficial to our society.