Rawls (?) view of a just society

[bunny]

There is a definition of a just society (due to Rawls I think though it has been a while). The definition (or description perhaps) is that a hypothetical society is just or fair if you would choose to live in it without knowing in advance which role within society you would take. Anyone have any opinions on this? Are there other views on a fair society that are worth a look?

[RagnarPirate]

The problem with that definition is that sick people might choose to live in an unjust society. So you can not say that a society is just solely because people voluntarily choose to live there (people willingly moved to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany).

A free society, BOTH economically and politically is the only just society (depending on the degree of compliance with these criteria, some societies are more just than others).

This is a libertarian society of laissez-faire capitalist economics. The only legitimate role for governmental is to protect invidiual rights of freedom and property from the use of force by others. This is limited to police, military, and objective courts of law. Taxation is limited to these services and is applied solely as a user fee for the particular services rendered.

[Hoi Polloi]

I think that the relation of justice and freedom is much more complex and nuanced than freedom = justice. Freedom has come to be a term of magic in American political debate and needs to defined and clarified before such generalizations can be made in my opinion.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that definition is that sick people might choose to live in an unjust society. So you can not say that a society is just solely because people voluntarily choose to live there (people willingly moved to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany).

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is quite what is meant - I think it is a thought experiment to decide if a theoretical society is just rather than a dictum that everyone will always migrate to what they think is the most just society.

[ QUOTE ]
A free society, BOTH economically and politically is the only just society (depending on the degree of compliance with these criteria, some societies are more just than others).

This is a libertarian society of laissez-faire capitalist economics. The only legitimate role for governmental is to protect invidiual rights of freedom and property from the use of force by others. This is limited to police, military, and objective courts of law. Taxation is limited to these services and is applied solely as a user fee for the particular services rendered.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Rawls would say that the society you outline is indeed just if a rational person would be happy to structure society like that without knowing in advance whether they would be born into a rich family with all the advantages that entails or something else (perhaps a chronically sick person from a poor background).

[tomdemaine]

It's called the veil of ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

[madnak]

My understanding of Rawls was that basically the justice of a society depends on the conditions for the absolute most unfortunate individuals. I haven't actually read him, but this has been my impression.

I think the standard of justice you're describing is as good a standard as there can be. But I believe Rawls's position is incompatible with it.

[RagnarPirate]

Justice: moral or absolute rightness (american heritage dictionary). Freedom is the ability to act without coercion. Freedom is moral. Slavery, partial or total, is immoral. Therefore a society where individuals are enjoy political and economic freedom is a just society.

[RagnarPirate]

Both the productive and the "sick" are better off in the free laissez-faire capitalist society.

It is obvious why the producers are better off so let us consider the "sick".

It would seem that the "sick" would prefer an egalitarian society where they would be brought up to the average level. The problem is that the average standard of living of the egalitarian society is much lower than that of a laissez-faire capitalist society.

In additon, insurance products are a part of any capitalistic society. So, if it is of value to you, voluntarily purchase disability, health, and life insurance to protect against catastrophic events while living in the most productive social system possible.

[RagnarPirate]

I read the wikipedia article. Rawl's error was including the following criteria for evaluating societies:

"Rawls also argues that the representatives in the original position would adopt the maximin rule as their principle for evaluating the choices before them... i.e. making the choice that produces the highest payoff for the worst outcome."

This is not the standard that I would choose for my life. Let me give an example.

World 1 = 100% of inhabitants have mild suffering until death.

World 2 = 98% of inhabitants have extreme joy for 1000 years. 2% have severe suffering until death.

I would choose world 2. Rawls would choose world 1 by his criteria.

In addition the choices are ridiculous, because in a free laisez-faire world each individual is allowed to buy insurance to allow their desired level of risk aversion.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a definition of a just society (due to Rawls I think though it has been a while). The definition (or description perhaps) is that a hypothetical society is just or fair if you would choose to live in it without knowing in advance which role within society you would take. Anyone have any opinions on this? Are there other views on a fair society that are worth a look?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rawls's position has a few holes in it, in my view. Suppose you have two societies. In one, 99.9% of the population live like hedonist kings. They never work and enjoy perpetual satisfaction of their every whim. The other .1% is continually subjected to excruciating torture because the technology that supports the majority is powered by a process that causes excruciating pain to the tortured minority. Who is in which group depends on some genetic accident.

In the other society, everyone is treated equally, but their lives all suck. Everyone does back-breaking, painful labor because they refuse to torture the genetic anomalies and exploit the otherwise free energy.

In which society would a rationally self-interested person choose to live?

Obviously, this hypothetical is extreme, but it illustrates the point. Unless we assume that the person behind the "veil of ignorance" is irrationally risk-averse, he would often choose an "unjust" (at least from the perspective of most conventionally accepted definitions) society .

edit: I just read the other responses. Yeah, what they said.

[RagnarPirate]

see my post 2 hours ago. same idea (plus insurance available in free society).

[JonTheFox]

agreed, josh & ragnar. I have the same beef with rawls

it makes me wonder, though, why a regressive tax system is just. let's compare people who make millions of dollars per year and people who make 20k a year. are both people free to make millions a year, or is one "genetically unlucky" or whatever? If everyone has the same opportunity, obviously there should be a flat tax on income (note: from a *just* point of view, I realize there are arguments to be made otherwise from a more practical point of view)
if people whose skills the market values at millions per year is just the result of lucky talent post-"original position", then if you think rawls is wrong you can't necessarily use this to justify a regressive tax. because maybe the quantification of the talent, hard work, etc., results in something which a non-"risk-averse" person would agree with while still behind the veil of ignorance.

eh, don't know if that was clear, but I don't feel like revising /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[RagnarPirate]

sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.

BTW I do not think progressive or regressive taxes are just per se. I think that the only just taxation is user fees based on protection of property by military and police (in the form of property insurance) as well as court fees / document stamps for resolving contract disputes. An equal "citizen fee" for every citizen would be appropriate for criminal police / courts / jails.

[atrifix]

I've never been terribly interested in contemporary political philosophy, but you may want to check out The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, and Reading Rawls by Daniels. Various people offer their views and respond to the risk-averse vs. risk-loving objection. Rawls also has a relatively new book Justice as Fairness: A Restatement that you might want to check out. And of course you can always reread books like A Theory of Justice and Anarchy, State and Utopia.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Rawls's position has a few holes in it, in my view. Suppose you have two societies. In one, 99.9% of the population live like hedonist kings. They never work and enjoy perpetual satisfaction of their every whim. The other .1% is continually subjected to excruciating torture because the technology that supports the majority is powered by a process that causes excruciating pain to the tortured minority. Who is in which group depends on some genetic accident.

In the other society, everyone is treated equally, but their lives all suck. Everyone does back-breaking, painful labor because they refuse to torture the genetic anomalies and exploit the otherwise free energy.

In which society would a rationally self-interested person choose to live?

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read Rawls, but is this the way Rawls intended his "just society crierion" to be interpreted? As an (a) or (b) choice?

To me it makes more sense if you consider it as a question of "are you willing to live in society X, yes/no?"

I wouldn't choose either of your societies, so by Rawls' criterion neither is just. What's wrong with that?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
In the other society, everyone is treated equally, but their lives all suck. Everyone does back-breaking, painful labor because they refuse to torture the genetic anomalies and exploit the otherwise free energy.

[/ QUOTE ] This is not compatible with Rawls view, given the difference principle.

[ QUOTE ]
Rawls's position has a few holes in it, in my view. Suppose you have two societies. In one, 99.9% of the population live like hedonist kings. They never work and enjoy perpetual satisfaction of their every whim. The other .1% is continually subjected to excruciating torture because the technology that supports the majority is powered by a process that causes excruciating pain to the tortured minority. Who is in which group depends on some genetic accident.


[/ QUOTE ] Rawls works only within the politically possible or what he calls 'the circumstances of justice' and builds his theory around a certain ammount of facts about 'human nature' (for example, that human beings are not hedonists) and commonsense 'political sociology'. People behind the veil of ignorance are aware of the fact that it is not true that there exists a 'technology that supports the majority that causes excruciating pain to the tortured minority'. Hence, you can't use hypothetical possibilities like this to argue against the fact that, given human beings and sociology as they are, they would choose the difference principle.

Your objections to Rawls theory are based on a large misunderstanding of it.

[moorobot]

Why should freedom by defined completely formally as the 'the ability to act without coercion' when the fact of the matter is is that many people will be unable to actually do what they want to do in such a society because of, e.g., lack of opportunities or money or productive assets??? Formal freedom does not = real freedom.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there other views on a fair society that are worth a look?


[/ QUOTE ] I believe Dworkin was correct when he said that all modern theories of justice, including Rawls theory, share the same fundemental/ultimate value: equality. They are all egalitarian theories. (see his book Soveriegn Virtue, as well as 'Taking Rights' Seriously and Law's Empire, but see especially Will Kymlicka's "Contemporary Political Philosophy).

Now, this suggestion is cleary false if by 'egalitarian theory we mean a theory that supports an equal distribution of income. But there is another, more abstract and more fundemental idea of equality: that of treating people 'as equals'. An egalitarian theory requires the government to treat its citizens with equal concern and respect.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should freedom by defined completely formally as the 'the ability to act without coercion' when the fact of the matter is is that many people will be unable to actually do what they want to do in such a society because of, e.g., lack of opportunities or money or productive assets???

[/ QUOTE ]
That is the definition, like it or not. I would rather some people naturally have "more" freedom than to have their freedom in jeopardy of being stolen on your or the central planner's whim.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should freedom by defined completely formally as the 'the ability to act without coercion' when the fact of the matter is is that many people will be unable to actually do what they want to do in such a society because of, e.g., lack of opportunities or money or productive assets??? Formal freedom does not = real freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being killed by being hit by lightning is not the same as being killed by being torn to pieces by your neighbor. Once you understand this simple concept, the rest follows.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why should freedom by defined completely formally as the 'the ability to act without coercion' when the fact of the matter is is that many people will be unable to actually do what they want to do in such a society because of, e.g., lack of opportunities or money or productive assets??? Formal freedom does not = real freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being killed by being hit by lightning is not the same as being killed by being torn to pieces by your neighbor. Once you understand this simple concept, the rest follows.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now he'll probably demand that less lightning-prone people wear lightning rods during storms to be more equal the more lightning-prone! Way to go, HLM! /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[TomCollins]

Formal Freedom:
http://www.teruz.com/images/freedom.jpg

Real Freedom:

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_RqxAS2lEFw8B4lOjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN 0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=12egd3r2m/EXP=1147837632/**http%3a//www.tinaheldt.de/Images/Tiere_2004/2004-04_Pony.jpg

[bunny]

Thank you all. I wont read all the books listed but I'll probably browse a few. I only read an extract of rawls in philosophy class cos I had to, all this recent AC discussion has got me thinking about distinguishing between a just and an unjust society.

[moorobot]

Both eliminate your freedom. But getting hit with a lightning bolt is not exactly preventable, poverty and inequality and unequal control over the means of production and politics ARE preventable. They only exist because of how we all organize our society.

You guys really love the naturalistic fallacy. Amazing, since it seems that if 'nature' was always right, you shouldn't morally be allowed to communicate with me since nature only allows you to speak to people within a few hundred yards of where you are.

[moorobot]

Only someone from the dominant group in a society (in this one, White males) who has never been poor and has never had the joy of a mind numbing, hierarchichally organized job who doesn't believe in democracy could post this.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Only someone from the dominant group in a society (in this one, White males) who has never been poor and has never had the joy of a mind numbing, hierarchichally organized job who doesn't believe in democracy could post this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you know more about my life than I do. Perhaps you have a suggestion of what I should eat for lunch, since you seem to know better than I.

[moorobot]

Given the fact that somebody starving and unhealthy in Somalia who can't get a job is free by the libertarian of freedom and Michael Jordan and Bill Gates are not I hardly see why it is worth having this conversation

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the fact that somebody starving and unhealthy in Somalia who can't get a job is free by the libertarian of freedom and Michael Jordan and Bill Gates are not I hardly see why it is worth having this conversation

[/ QUOTE ]


Are the poor in Somalia poor because of, or in spite of the lack of a state?

Is Bill Gates and Michael Jordan rich because of, or in spite of a state?

You seem to lack this understanding of a simple concept. Correlation does not imply causation.

[moorobot]

I'm talking about theoretical definitions of freedom here. By the libertarian definition of freedom (freedom from 'coercion') Jordan is unfree, but Somalians are free.

It has nothing to do with whatever your misunderstanding of my post was. My point is that to have money (or opportunity, or productive assests) is to have freedom, and we should build that into our definition of what a free society is.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about theoretical definitions of freedom here. By the libertarian definition of freedom (freedom from 'coercion') Jordan is unfree, but Somalians are free.

It has nothing to do with whatever your misunderstanding of my post was. My point is that to have money (or opportunity, or productive assests) is to have freedom, and we should build that into our definition of what a free society is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the word you are looking for is either wealth or power.

Free: Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
Power: The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.
Wealth: An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.

See how these three terms are different? You can redefine them all you want, but it is simply newspeak designed to confuse readers. Are you really so dense that you do not understand the difference between liberty to do something and ability to do something? I used to think you were deliberately misleading, but now I'm beginning to think you honestly don't have the capacity for such simple concepts.

[moorobot]

part of 'being at liberty' is to have money. This is generally agreed upon by philsophers. I can also say someone is 'imprisoned' by their lack of money, or enslaved by conditions.

But, in any case, if Somalia is a free society, then I guess a view which equates a good society or just society with a free society is flawed, or at least vastly incomplete, correct?

[ QUOTE ]
the difference between liberty to do something and ability to do something?

[/ QUOTE ] I occasionally call this the difference between formal and substantive freedom, and consider the first to be worthless without the second.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
part of 'being at liberty' is to have money. This is generally agreed upon by philsophers. I can also say someone is 'imprisoned' by their lack of money, or enslaved by conditions.

But, in any case, if Somalia is a free society, then I guess a view which equates a good society or just society with a free society is flawed, or at least vastly incomplete, correct?
I am not an ACist, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Somalia is making a lot of progress, especially compared to similar nations. Is Somalia the best country to live in? Of course not. I have no idea what the relevance of bringing up Somalia is. Try making a point sometime. You simply try to infer your causation is implied by correlation argument yet again. There are many factors at play here. I would rather be the King of an unjust society than a pauper in the most just society. BFD.
[ QUOTE ]
the difference between liberty to do something and ability to do something?

[/ QUOTE ] I occasionally call this the difference between formal and substantive freedom, and consider the first to be worthless without the second.
[b] You can call it whatever you want, but it is still newspeak. You can consider it worthless all you want, but without it, you can NEVER have the second on a large scale. The slavemasters will certainly have it, at the expense of everyone else.


[/ QUOTE ]

[moorobot]

I'm not making any kind of correlation implies causation argument: I'M NOT MAKING AN EMPIRICAL ARGUMENT AT ALL HERE.

You're thinking empirially here; while I'm thinking only normatively. People in Somalia are TECHNICALLY FREE according to how you just defined freedom. But that is not a good society.

If freedom is all that we care about, the only criterion of what a good or just society is, then Somalia is BY YOUR DEFINITION is a perfectly good and just society.

But, like some other ACERS here, you find it easier to just call people who have different views than you stupid then to actually think yourself and question your own beliefs.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not making any kind of correlation implies causation argument: I'M NOT MAKING AN EMPIRICAL ARGUMENT AT ALL HERE.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure sounds like it. But then again, it's hard to tell what argument you are ever making.


[ QUOTE ]
You're thinking empirially here; while I'm thinking only normatively. People in Somalia are TECHNICALLY FREE according to how you just defined freedom. But that is not a good society.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the definition of a good society? It might be a just society.
[ QUOTE ]

If freedom is all that we care about, the only criterion of what a good or just society is, then Somalia is BY YOUR DEFINITION is a perfectly good and just society.

But, like some other ACERS here, you find it easier to just call people who have different views than you stupid then to actually think yourself and question your own beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, Somalia may very well be a just society. This has nothing to do with its success or wealth. There are many factors here. Somalia was oppressed for years. To assume that they would be instantly successful in 10 years NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM IS IN PLACE is foolish. They seem to be doing well relative to other countries with similar backgrounds.

I'm not an ACist. Thanks for making more assumptions about me. I am constantly analyzing my own position. But since you claim to be able to read my mind, you should have known that. But maybe you should listen to your own advice.

[madnak]

People in Somalia are not free; they suffer more coercion than almost any other population in the world.

You're being extremely disingenuous here.

The very research you're fond of citing indicates that coercion goes up as poverty increases, and that therefore a free society is a society with very little poverty. The fact this is an indirect implication rather than a direct moral standpoint is irrelevant to its truth.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
To assume that they would be instantly successful in 10 years NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM IS IN PLACE is foolish. They seem to be doing well relative to other countries with similar backgrounds.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not talking about sucess or failure here in practice; I'm talking about definitions of freedom; what it means to be free. That is all. TO me it is insane to see that people in Somalia are more free than Michael Jordan; and that is what the theoretical definition of freedom that right wing thinkers use implies. That was it. No arguments for or against libertarianism in practice; just an argument against the principles used to defend it.

[Borodog]

Those in Somalia are not more free than Michael Jordan. They have less secure property rights, and hence less freedom. You advocate a system of pervasive and institutionalized mass violation of property rights, a system that will end up looking a lot like Somalia does.

[moorobot]

But doesn't Jordan lack property rights on your view of them because he has to pay taxes? Now I'm confused.

[ QUOTE ]
You advocate a system of pervasive and institutionalized mass violation of property rights, a system that will end up looking a lot like Somalia does.

[/ QUOTE ] Who did who with the what now!? Why aren't statist mixed economies collapsing right now?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't Jordan lack property rights on your view of them because he has to pay taxes? Now I'm confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that property rights are more secure in Somalia than they are for Michael Jordan? If you are, you are wrong. If you are not, your deliberate misinterpretation and subsequent feigned confusion are a tad bit disingenuous, don't you think?

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
You advocate a system of pervasive and institutionalized mass violation of property rights, a system that will end up looking a lot like Somalia does.

[/ QUOTE ] Who did who with the what now!? Why aren't statist mixed economies collapsing right now?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that property rights are more secure in Somalia than they are for Michael Jordan? If you are, you are wrong. If you are not, your deliberate misinterpretation and subsequent feigned confusion are a tad bit disingenuous, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ] No, I thought that in your view, following a lot of right-libertarians, people paying taxes lack true property rights. I am not feigning confusion here.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
all this recent AC discussion has got me thinking about distinguishing between a just and an unjust society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't bother. All you'll do is subjectively create your own definition of justice, and since coercing your personal justice onto society requires massive violent intervention into every other individual's lives, then that means your definition of justice completely approves theft and violence.

[madnak]

It's not a question of black-and-white. In this world, nobody has complete property rights. Hell, probably nobody ever will. Anarchocapitalism is not a utopian concept.

The question is who has more property rights - Michael Jordan, or the kid in Somalia.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
all this recent AC discussion has got me thinking about distinguishing between a just and an unjust society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't bother. All you'll do is subjectively create your own definition of justice, and since coercing your personal justice onto society requires massive violent intervention into every other individual's lives, then that means your definition of justice completely approves theft and violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cant I distinguish between two societies without imposing my view on other people?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Cant I distinguish between two societies without imposing my view on other people?


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sure, as a pure mental masturbatory exercise you can. Sorry.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cant I distinguish between two societies without imposing my view on other people?


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sure, as a pure mental masturbatory exercise you can. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does it have to be "a pure mental masturbatory exercise"? I think it is an ethical requirement of anyone participating in a democracy to think about issues like this to inform their actions. Conclusions I draw from philosophy affect how I act.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is an ethical requirement of anyone participating in a democracy to think about issues like this to inform their actions. Conclusions I draw from philosophy affect how I act.


[/ QUOTE ]

So like I said, your conclusion on what "ethical" means and what "justice" means are YOUR conclusions, not mine or anyone elses.

To act in a democracy, (i take it you are referring to voting), you are attempting to force your conclusions of justice and ethics onto me and everyone else. This, of course, can only be done through massive violent intervention, meaning your conclusions of justice and ethics approve of theft and violence.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cant I distinguish between two societies without imposing my view on other people?


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sure, as a pure mental masturbatory exercise you can. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you put that Ironicometer?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cant I distinguish between two societies without imposing my view on other people?


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sure, as a pure mental masturbatory exercise you can. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you put that Ironicometer?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
Rawls works only within the politically possible or what he calls 'the circumstances of justice' and builds his theory around a certain ammount of facts about 'human nature' (for example, that human beings are not hedonists) and commonsense 'political sociology'. People behind the veil of ignorance are aware of the fact that it is not true that there exists a 'technology that supports the majority that causes excruciating pain to the tortured minority'. Hence, you can't use hypothetical possibilities like this to argue against the fact that, given human beings and sociology as they are, they would choose the difference principle.

Your objections to Rawls theory are based on a large misunderstanding of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand Rawls's theory. He posits a method for evaluating competing policy choices (i.e., we should evaluate them from the "original position" behind the "veil of ignorance"). I used a hypothetical example to illustrate the flaw in his method (or at least the conclusion he draws from it). My hypothetical assumed that the person behind the veil knows the results of the two different policies. If we invent a technology like the one I imagined in my post, society would need to decide whether to use it. If we use Rawls's method, unless we assume irrational risk aversion, a policymaker behind the veil would choose to exploit the tecnology, knowing that there was a 99.9% chance that he would be in the benefitted class. But Rawls would conclude that we wouldn't choose it because it worsens the lives of the worst-off .1%

Rawls assumes that the person behind the veil will choose policy based on fear that he may be in the worst-off group, rather than on the basis of what would maximize his expected self-interested pay off. Simply put, that is not how rational, self-interested decision makers (or humans in general) act. We are irrationally (from a mathematical standpoint) risk-averse to some degree, but not to the degree necessary for Rawls's theory to hold water.

My extreme example merely illustrates the flaw more clearly than real-world examples like governmental welfare or unemployment insurance.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that property rights are more secure in Somalia than they are for Michael Jordan? If you are, you are wrong. If you are not, your deliberate misinterpretation and subsequent feigned confusion are a tad bit disingenuous, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ] No, I thought that in your view, following a lot of right-libertarians, people paying taxes lack true property rights. I am not feigning confusion here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my car is stolen that doesn't mean that my property rights are completely insecure. There are obviously degrees of security of property rights. And in some places, some subset of property rights might be totally secure while another subset might be totally insecure.

How this is not obvious is what confuses me.

Edit: Just to make it painfully clear, what you have done is attempt to pass off a strawman, wherein "property rights" are an on/off switch, and a violition of property rights is identical to a complete lack of them. This is fallacious.

[Ed Miller]

It's clear from the replies in this thread that a lot of you haven't read A Theory of Justice. I highly recommend reading it, even for those who consider themselves "AC-ers." It's an excellent book.

FWIW, I considered myself a libertarian until I read this book (and some others)...

[lehighguy]

[ QUOTE ]
An egalitarian theory requires the government to treat its citizens with equal concern and respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it require the government to treat its citizens equally, or people to treat eachother equally?

[lehighguy]

But Ed, even if we accept this as true, how does a coercive government help for a more equal/just society. It seems to have done the exact opposite (historically).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It's clear from the replies in this thread that a lot of you haven't read A Theory of Justice. I highly recommend reading it, even for those who consider themselves "AC-ers." It's an excellent book.

FWIW, I considered myself a libertarian until I read this book (and some others)...

[/ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the forum but it goes against the spirit to suggest reading about the subject before we pontificate.

chez

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
But Ed, even if we accept this as true, how does a coercive government help for a more equal/just society. It seems to have done the exact opposite (historically).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just saying it's a good, thought-provoking book. I'm not prepared to argue the ideas one way or the other at the moment... except that I think A Theory of Justice is worth reading for anyone who hasn't yet read it (and is interested enough in the topic to post in this thread).

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
It's clear from the replies in this thread that a lot of you haven't read A Theory of Justice. I highly recommend reading it, even for those who consider themselves "AC-ers." It's an excellent book.

FWIW, I considered myself a libertarian until I read this book (and some others)...

[/ QUOTE ]

And I highly recommend reading any of the numerous books that have refuted Rawls and his various works. The Ethics of Liberty (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/hoppeintro.asp), by Murray N. Rothbard would do nicely.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
And I highly recommend...

[/ QUOTE ]

We know.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I highly recommend...

[/ QUOTE ]

We know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo. Do you feel better now?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is an ethical requirement of anyone participating in a democracy to think about issues like this to inform their actions. Conclusions I draw from philosophy affect how I act.


[/ QUOTE ]

So like I said, your conclusion on what "ethical" means and what "justice" means are YOUR conclusions, not mine or anyone elses.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really dont understand where you are coming from. They are my conclusions, yes and I dont want to force anyone else to adopt them.

[ QUOTE ]
To act in a democracy, (i take it you are referring to voting), you are attempting to force your conclusions of justice and ethics onto me and everyone else. This, of course, can only be done through massive violent intervention, meaning your conclusions of justice and ethics approve of theft and violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasnt actually necessarily referring to voting. I may act by arguing rationally for my position in an attempt to change everyone else's mind. With respect, I think you are misconstruing my goals as political when they are philosophical. I am thinking about all this stuff for the first time and trying to form a coherent position - it seems like you are saying "dont bother" on the grounds that you already know the answer, which may be true but doesnt help me at all.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
we invent a technology like the one I imagined in my post, society would need to decide whether to use it

[/ QUOTE ] But since it has not been invented it has no role in what we choose under the veil of ignorance, because they know it has not been invented. They would choose the two principles of justice, given our current situation. Now, you can disagree with the procedure he uses, but given things as they are and people as they are (according to Rawls) they clearly would choose the difference principle. His setup may not be correct procedurally. But given the procedure they would choose those principles.

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, that is not how rational, self-interested decision makers

[/ QUOTE ] Rawls vies self-interested and rationality as a desire to exercise one of human beings 'moral powers': the capacity to create and pursue a conception of the good. A rational, self-interested person is one which wants to increase his/her ability to exercise this power. Hence, people are not self-interested in the hedonistic sense, the people behind the veil of ignoracnce know they are not hedonists, hence they wouldn't care whether or not they could torment people to increase their own pleasure pain ratio or not or not. They just know they need resources and liberties to pursue their ends, whatever they turn out to be. In other words, your objection plays on a different definition of the term rational than Rawls himself uses: he does not use the neoclassical economists definition of Rational here, but the one I explained above. equivocal. Using Rawls's definition of rational, your example is utterly irrelevant.

In case you are wondering, I think Rawls is right that People are not out to maximize their pleasure pain ratio; if they were, as Nozick pointed out, they would simply create machines which give them pleasurable sensations all day long, and hook themselves up to it perpetually. Imagine that neuropsychologists can hook us up to a machine that injects drugs into us. These drugs create the most pleasurable conscious staes imaginable. If it were 'rational' to seek hedonistic pleasure, all of us would volunteer to be hooked up to this machine for life. But surely very few people would volunteer. Far from being the best life we could lead, this hardly counts as living a life at all; it is a wasted life, devoid of value. People are not pleasure pain machines.

Once again, you can object to Rawls definitions and his formulation of the veil of ignorace and OP. But, given how he builds his theory, they would choose the two principles of justice.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
So like I said, your conclusion on what "ethical" means and what "justice" means are YOUR conclusions, not mine or anyone elses.

To act in a democracy, (i take it you are referring to voting), you are attempting to force your conclusions of justice and ethics onto me and everyone else. This, of course, can only be done through massive violent intervention, meaning your conclusions of justice and ethics approve of theft and violence.

[/ QUOTE ] I strongly, strongly recommend reading all of Rawls works to anyone who thinks this. The argument is long, taking dozens and dozens of pages to even summarize well, but maybe his most important point is that this is not at all true.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's clear from the replies in this thread that a lot of you haven't read A Theory of Justice. I highly recommend reading it, even for those who consider themselves "AC-ers." It's an excellent book.

FWIW, I considered myself a libertarian until I read this book (and some others)...

[/ QUOTE ]

And I highly recommend reading any of the numerous books that have refuted Rawls and his various works. The Ethics of Liberty (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/hoppeintro.asp), by Murray N. Rothbard would do nicely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, FA Hayek's The Road to Serfdom refuted the entire notion of "redistributive justice" in a single chapter (Chapter 6, Planning and the Rule of Law) almost thirty years before Rawls was even published.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, FA Hayek's The Road to Serfdom refuted the entire notion of "redistributive justice" in a single chapter (Chapter 6, Planning and the Rule of Law) almost thirty years before Rawls was even published.

[/ QUOTE ] Really, he refuted it then??? How come over 90% of political theorists and philosophers, almost all of whom have read and understand Hayek's book, believe in social/distributive justice then???!!!!

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Moorobot: Really, he refuted it then??? How come over 90% of political theorists and philosophers, almost all of whom have read and understand Hayek's book, believe in social/distributive justice then???!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Moorobot:I don't know where to find good left-wing critiques of Austrianism at this moment. Perhaps they, like me, just consider it a deeply implausible pseudo science, because of its flawed methodology and premises about human beings and interactions between people.


[/ QUOTE ]

So they, and you, arrive at the conclusion that the methodology (and premises) are flawed, yet they, and you, don't have any idea why. "I boggle."

[moorobot]

What do you mean? I even gave you a link to a simple article which had some reasons why most people disagree with Austrian theory emprically. I've also given my view of human nature and reasons for human behavior, and some prevailing views of it, in other threads which is different from the view which is absolutely required to support austrianism.

As for the normative reasons to not agree with Hayek, you could easily tell why some exist by reading Rawls books; even my exchange with Joshua should help a little bit.

What boggles my mind is that you instantly assume everyone who disagrees with your extemist view is a moron, despite the fact that most of the best minds of our century disagree with it.

Take Rawls for example. The man is generally considered the greatest political philosopher since Mill. Yet you assume he is no idea why they are flawed.

The reason I don't waste my time trying to debunk Austrianism on it is because it is a fringe movement, and I've never seen a follower of Austrianism on this board change his view about it or concede the oppositions point during debate; no matter how obviously correct the opposition was. It is more useful to have other debates. Austrianism (and this is especially true in Hayek's case) tries to turn what is at best sound economic policy advice into absolute moral and other conceptual truths.

[Riddick]

Moorobot, you simply suffer greatly from what is known as the "Whig Theory of History" (Rothbard gave a great 6-part lecture that revolved around the fallacy of this theory, "History of Economic Thought," located at mises.org).

This fallacy "really maintains that, for any point of historical time, whatever was, was right, or at least better than whatever was earlier."

So since Rawls published in 1971, he, according to you, must have considered Hayek's refutation of redistributive justice and first debunked it himself, despite the utter lack of evidence that Rawls did any such thing. Later is simply better

But allow me to further cite the genius of Rothbard:

[ QUOTE ]
There can therefore be no presumption whatever in economics that later thought is better than earlier, or even that all well-known economists have contributed their sturdy mite to the developing discipline. For it becomes very likely that, rather than everyone contributing to an ever-progressing edifice, economics can and has proceeded in contentious, even zigzag fashion, with later systemic fallacy sometimes elbowing aside earlier but sounder paradigms, thereby redirecting economic thought down a total erroneous or even tragic path. The overall path of economics may be up, or it may be down, over any given time period.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In recent years, economics, under the dominant influence of formalism, positivism and econometrics, and preening itself on being a hard science, has displayed little interest in its own past. It has been intent, as in any "real" science, on the latest textbook or journal article rather than on exploring its own history. After all, do contemporary physicists spend much time poring over eighteenth-century optics?



[/ QUOTE ]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't waste my time trying to debunk Austrianism on it is because it is a fringe movement, and I've never seen a follower of Austrianism on this board change his view about it or concede the oppositions point during debate

[/ QUOTE ]
You could easily be describing yourself. Also notice that while the first ACers haven't changed their minds, some here have converted to AC, so to speak. Tells you something about the power of their arguments.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
So since Rawls published in 1971, he, according to you, must have considered Hayek's refutation of redistributive justice and first debunked it himself, despite the utter lack of evidence that Rawls did any such thing. Later is simply better

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this at all. Mill's Principles of Political Economy and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations are both far more insightful than all of Hayek's positive theories put together (although some of Hayek's critique of the USSR was outstanding and his warnings about unintended consequences, I must say)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't waste my time trying to debunk Austrianism on it is because it is a fringe movement, and I've never seen a follower of Austrianism on this board change his view about it or concede the oppositions point during debate; no matter how obviously correct the opposition was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've changed my view about it plenty based on this forum. What you're looking for isn't a change in views. You're looking for a complete rejection of Austrian theory, and of course that's not going to happen.

[NobodysFreak]

Wait, so you're saying that a bunch of state-funded "intellectuals" actually support a philosophy that requires they get more money and funding? Amazing connection.

And please, stop with this nonsense: "90% of all philosophers..."