6 ms·
I think there's a better way of thinking about this subject which leads you to similar conclusions using less imagination. You can actually end up in most peopl
by guerrilla 4y ago
I think there's a better way of thinking about this subject which leads you to similar conclusions using less imagination. You can actually end up in most people's positions, so it's irrational to promote norms that harm others and benefit you disproportionately. War, economic collapse, disease, disability, climate change, natural disaster, etc. all happen. You can bet on the probabilities all you want, but black swan events do happen and you can become the minority, the immigrant, the homeless, the disabled, etc. in a flash. It's always in your own self-interest to maximize the minimum.
As far as Nozick goes, I think Proudhon addressed that a century earlier.
- ReaLNero 4y agoImportant fyi is that in Rawls's conception of justice, you do not have knowledge of the likelihood of characteristics like handicap, immigrants etc. Otherwise an enslaved minority would be worthwhile enough to make a just society, which is clearly incorrect.
- guerrilla 4y agoI know and that's captured in what I said. You have no idea what could happen to you. This actual fact replaces (or supplements) the need for the Veil of Ignorance. Maximizing the minimum actually reduces the worst case scenario you could end up in and there's nothing hypothetical about that.
- mistermann 4y ago> You have no idea what could happen to you. This actual fact... Sometimes beliefs are more important than facts though. People in general may not have the depth of understanding you do.
- nickff 4y agoYou are assuming that everyone shares your risk aversion, which is rather similar to one of Rawls' logical errors.
- guerrilla 4y agoI can't help you if you're not averse to being enslaved and tortured.
- nickff 4y agoI think enslavement and torture aversion are widespread, but some people are likely more tolerant of enslavement and torture risk. The fact that people volunteer for military service and combat duties is some evidence of this.
- guerrilla 4y agoOkay, I see your point. We should probably be aware that such risk tolerances can change though.
- nickff 4y agoAll preferences change over time; this is one of many problems with Rawls' logic.
- guerrilla 4y ago> All preferences change over time; this is one of many problems with Rawls' logic. No, not even close. Aversion to torture and torture doesn't. Need for air, water, food, hygiene, clothes, shelter, etc. doesn't.
- eckmLJE 4y agoSome people feel in control of their life, have a support system, etc. and believe that such things could never happen to them.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoRight, many of those people are much less likely to be at the receiving end of enslavement and torture and go on the make generalization errors from that position.
- ruined 4y agoare you sure it's a generalization error? you forget that people experiencing enslavement and torture also have some amount of agency, and historically, have periodically organized to inflict terror upon people who seem to be immune to or supported by the pains of the momentary status quo. it seems silly to believe that outcome to be impossible and erroneous to consider, when there are people out there actively working towards that objective.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoSorry, just really not convinced by this rebuttal. I don't think the enslavers and torturers today are concerned with Spartacus-type events and that makes them not assume their experiences are generalizable.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- billfruit 4y agoDo you mean Proudhomme?
- whimsicalism 4y agoProudhon (IMO) is not nearly as compelling as either Rawls or Nozick, although he is popular among the younger generation of 'professional-class' capitalists.
- guerrilla 4y agoHave you read "What is property?" or Nozick? > although he is popular among the younger generation of 'professional-class' capitalists. This seems like an attempted ad hominem but makes me suspect you might not know who Proudhon is.
- whimsicalism 4y agoI've actually read both, although it's been a while since "What is property?". I have not read any other Proudhon. > makes me suspect you might not know who Proudhon is. No, I know exactly who he is. Left libertarianism is ironically very popular among rich millenials & Gen Z, probably because it allows them to be cynical about all institutions when in reality governmental, collective action is the only realistic counter to capitalism.
- guerrilla 4y ago> No, I know exactly who he is. Left libertarianism is ironically very popular among rich millenials & Gen Z, probably because it allows them to be cynical about all institutions when in reality governmental, collective action is the only realistic counter to capitalism. What you said originally is that Proudhon is popular among a subclass of capitalists, which is a contradiction, being that he was an anti-capitalist. Now you're saying libertarian socialism is popular among a subset of rich people, which also seems pretty suspect at this point in time. Then you're giving an explanation of why this is the case but that also seems implausible and you give no argument or evidence for it (and honestly it just sounds like dismissive hand-waving)... Then you say collective action, exactly what Proudhon (and almost all libertarian socialists, including mutualists) argued for, is the alternative, which is also a contradiction: It can't be the alternative if it was part of the original position. What you're saying isn't making any sense to me...
- wwweston 4y agoThis is one of the most important ways to think about accessibility, FWIW. Even if you've been lucky enough to have full baseline sensory & motor capabilities for most of your life, on a lifetime horizon chances are pretty good you will eventually develop issues with one or another and who knows what else.