After reading the case, “Choosing Lots”, the best resolution in this situation would be Lots A because each person deserves equal rights just like the wealthy people do. Lots A is basically where poor and immigrants lives without transportation. Lots A and Lots B can buy their own public transportation since they basically live in a “wealthy” neighborhood. They don’t need the government agencies to buy a public transportation for them. The government agencies needs to be thinking about the lower class not the upper class. The upper class can buy and have what they want not the lower class. The lower class has to either walk to work, work more than two jobs to support their families, and maintain good health while the middle and upper class has their “basic needs” handed to them, pretty much. If I had to choose between one of the theories between principle of equal liberty and difference principle, it would be principle of equal liberty. It would be principle of equal liberty because everyone should be treated equally even if they are more poorer than others. Poor people …show more content…
Lots A has much less such as a public bus and other stuff. A public to transport poorer people would be great in Lots A than other Lots. The government agencies should think twice about buying from either Lot B and C. Thinking more about the cons about each Lots. Lots A, has much more poorer people including immigrants who needs to be transported to point A to point B and without that that, they would become even more poorer. Lots B is a middle class and close to upper class like Lots C, so why should they be given a public transportation there. Lots C is definitely a no because they are much more wealthier than Lots A and B put together even though they are going to court about