Rawls (?) view of a just society

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[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.