Posted on 08/11/2004 11:35:46 AM PDT by LibWhacker
The crux of Rawls' argument, IIRC, is that if we were setting up a system ex nihilo (in the original position) before we knew our place in society, our family, character or intelligence ('behind the veil of ignorance'), the only system we would all agree to would be one of fundamental equality that did not advantange anyone on the basis of wealth, family, character or intelligence.
I happen to think Rawls' point is fundamentally wrong, that even one who realized he might find himself less advantaged in real life, if setting up a system in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, might well agree to a system that advantaged talent, character or hard work. The difference is that Rawls posits no possibility of any transcendent morality that would reward individual behaviour -- that is he is fundamentally a collectivist and anti-Lockean. That is the popular approach in academic philosophy in the modern era, but I think fundamentally wrong. I participated in an interesting graduate philosophy seminar on Rawls and Nozick back in the '70s when both books were pretty new. I wanted to like Rawls less than I did and Nozick more than I did.
You're right, but I'll go further. Very few mediocre people would even realize that they'd be at a disadvantage in such a system, because most people--and especially the mediocre--think themselves smarter and more talented than they really are, indeed smarter and more talented than most other people.
Nihilism, of course. That's also the ultimate problem with Sarte's existentialism, in which everyone is responsible for everything, which renders the concept of responsibilty meaningless and therefore the notion of holding anyone responsible (if other than a political convenience) is absurd.
Welcome to modern philosophy.
To hold that viewpoint requires a very extreme form of determinism--that one is compelled by one's genome and upbringing to be successful. The successful literally cannot do otherwise, just as the slothful have no choice. I wonder whether the exponents of that viewpoint actually hold it consistently: they would have no justification for taking anyone to court, e.g. for not living up to the terms of a contract--the other party couldn't do otherwise!
That's one idea on how to organize society. It leads to the rule of the apparatchiks and, ultimately, falls apart because the talented object.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability.
It may not be just but it works. The most talented people end up doing the work for which they are best-suited...which is a pretty good start.
And what's just?
There's nothing wonderful about the untalented, the stupid, the ugly, the poor, the unfortunate. Simply put, there are huge numbers of such people and their wishes and welfare can be discounted only at great risk to a society. Our ideas of justice spring from that realization.
Very silly, I know, but it does irritate me that democrats would concentrate on re-distributing wealth and nothing else.
Stupid. Ugly. Mean. Democrat.
Yep, it all fits...
What is his standing now amongst academic philosophers? I know his Theory of Justice was all the rage when it was first published, but I hear much less of Rawls nowadays.
'Rats aren't interested in justice. They're interested in power.
It's not that the Democrats want to redistribute wealth that bothers me, it's whose wealth they want to redistribute.
It always seems that when liberals find a problem that needs to be solved, and needs money to solve it, their consciences can be assuaged only by making other people pay the needed money.
At university, I remember arguing with earnest young women who saw all this poverty and need for education and the like in the ghettos or in appalachia -- and who proposed raising taxes to pay for solving the problems. My response, which unhinged them, was well, if you see a problem, go solve it. If teachers are needed in the ghetto, get your credential and go teach in the ghetto. Or contribute your own money to charities that work with the poor in just the way you think it should be done. Oh, no. There were always dozens of reason why they couldn't do that, but the problem was so important that the government should fix it by putting its hands into other people's pockets to pay someone to work in the ghetto. It reminds me of the notion of substitutes in the civil war draft: only instead of the individual paying a substitute, they want the government to extract the cost of the substitute from everyone (not them) and then to pay the substitute. Bah!
I'm long out of academia, but as far as I know, he's still widely read (saw the book in the Columbia bookstore for a course last fall). At the least he's still the starting position for modern treatments of liberalism as political philosophy.
I hope you don't really believe that.:)
Everyone's interested in power...and in wealth. Nor is the quest for justice a strictly partisan affair.
The contrary, however, in mostly true. Partisans, no matter their persuasion, are mostly interested in power and have little concern for justice. The Biblical injunction about beams and motes is made for them.
Of course I believe it. It's an empirical fact. 'Rats are partisans without a cause, by which I mean legitimate cause.
Tell me, for instance, why . . . Specifically, why? . . . in Heaven's name, you think the stupid , the ignorant and the lazy must be given a substantial cut of the proceeds of my hard labor . . . Not generalities, mind you . . . But specifically, what historical precedent illustrates that that is a prerequisite for a peaceful society? Note I only ask for an illustration, proof being impossible.
There is none. There is not even a valid illustration, much less proof. In reality -- what "it" (the theft of hard-earned rewards) REALLY is -- is a prerequisite for disaster. And for this I am prepared to offer a probabilistic "proof," which I'm sure you cannot in support of your position.
And in fact, there is no overarching liberal "cause" at all, except for the cause of satisfying the liberals' own unquenchable lust to ascend to absolute power. As Madame Mao -- one of your most beloved icons once said -- "Although sex is engaging in the first rounds, what sustains interest in the long run is power."
But, I'm sorry to say, you'll get there only over my dead body, LL. And most conservatives think the same way. I know that saddens you and Tom Daschle, but it's a fact.
And you're wrong also (naturally!), about "everyone" being interested in power and wealth. I'm not, for one (Hahahahahaha . . . . How's that, liberalLarry, the first person you encounter after making such a ridiculous claim, disproves it?). I am ONLY interested in being left alone as long as I break no laws -- particularly by leftist scum who want to steal what little I do have for their own corrupt use, and who want to deny me my God-given right to defend myself and my family.
No hard "feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings," though.
Cheers!
'Yer friend, LibWhacker. :)
P.S. It's best not to refer to Scripture unless you believe in it.
ping
Concern for the rights and welfare of the weak is an old, old concept dating back to pre-history. One finds the idea in most religions and most societies. There's always someone who dispenses "justice".
Why do you think that is?
Obviously, if everyone felt as you do - that the weak are "stupid,ignorant, and lazy" - there would be no charity and no attempt to provide them with opportunity or respite from their misery.
As for historical precedents that this concern is a prerequisite for a peaceful society, the record is mixed since peace is a rare occurance. One cannot even demonstrate that democracies are stronger than tyrannies. They weren't in the ancient world. None-the-less, it seems likely that people with some dignity and power, with a stake, are more likely to support their society than those with none.
what "it" (the theft of hard-earned rewards) REALLY is
This, and much else you say, is nothing but propaganda. All possessions are hard-earned and hard kept. Even those which were stolen from others. Your diatribe reminds me of the difference between privateering and piracy. The former is "legal" and engaged in by "men of substance" while the latter is "illegal" and the work of "marginal characters". Both, of course, are forms of armed robbery.
And in fact, there is no overarching liberal "cause" at all
I benefit from all sorts of public works - paid for to a large extent by taxes; public education, innoculations and other public health measures, municipal water and power, an extensive road system. So do you, but your rigid ideology prevents you from seeing it. Where one draws the line is a legimate point of debate. But to dogmatically characterize all wealth transfers, all public works, as evil is stupid.
As Madame Mao -- one of your most beloved icons once said -- "Although sex is engaging in the first rounds, what sustains interest in the long run is power."
Get an education...and get some manners. Madame Mao is not one of my most beloved icons. I know hardly anything about her. But her observation about power is universal.
I'm not, for one
You're posting to a political site and claiming you have no interest in power? See a shrink.
No hard "feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings," though
Try thinking for yourself rather than repeating foolish stereotypes. You'll find it's much harder to do.
It's best not to refer to Scripture unless you believe in it
What arrogance! What ignorance!
The observation about beams and motes has been made by most peoples in most times. I just like the Biblical phrasing. Nor is there any reason why I shouldn't take wisdom where I find it. There are lots of good reasons for being selective about what one takes from any source - including the Bible.
As for historical precedents that thisWell, at least you admit that much. Note that it means there is no compelling reason for doing it.concernthievery is a prerequisite for a peaceful society, the record is mixed . . .
Here's what you said:
. . . there are huge numbers of such people and their wishes and welfare can be discounted only at great risk to a society. Our ideas of justice spring from that realization.But you can't offer any data to back it up. Yet 'rats insist on the right to take food out of the mouths of a huge number of working class American families. Try showing compassion them for once.
All possessions are hard-earned and hard kept.Jesus, the crap you say with a straight face.
I benefit from all sorts of public works - paid for to a large extent by taxes; public education, innoculations and other public health measures, municipal water and power . . .That's not what I'm talking about and you know it. Can you 'rats ever be honest?
You're posting to a political site and claiming you have no interest in power? See a shrink.Just like a 'rat . . . Here I'm interested in preventing thieves from taking what is mine and you characterize it as a power grab. Conservatives as a whole don't steal from anybody and don't want to steal from anybody. Socialists live to steal so they can buy votes with the spoils. Big difference.
Regarding the ad hominem education crap . . . Mine's perhaps as good as yours, maybe better.
The Romans thought bread and circuses were a good idea. Nobody since has disputed that. Perhaps you'd like to try?
Dispute it if you can.
That's not what I'm talking about and you know it
No I don't. Why don't you tell me?
Here I'm interested in preventing thieves from taking what is mine and you characterize it as a power grab
For the purposes of this discussion power can be defined either as the ability to do what you wish or to get others to do what you wish. Politics is certainly about the latter and often about the former.
Conservatives as a whole don't steal from anybody and don't want to steal from anybody
It's all in how one defines these things...and the reality is always different than the theory. Neither conservatives nor liberals condone what is commonly defined as theft. And when they do condone theft they give it another name and legalize it; taxes, tax breaks, socialization, privatisation, etc. etc. etc. Clean hands are hard to find.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.