3 ms·

I'm open to any system of government that systematically tries to pass John Rawls' veil of ignorance[0] test. In theory, it doesn't even have to be democratic.

I'm open to any system of government that systematically tries to pass John Rawls' veil of ignorance[0] test. In theory, it doesn't even have to be democratic. In practice though, I haven't yet seen any non-democracy get even close. Yes, the Chinese state has made some remarkable positive material achievements for most Chinese. No, it does an absolutely shit job for many of them. Imagine being Uyghur, critical of Xi, religious, lgbti+, black or a combination of the above. What would it take for a national government to get more passable results on the veil of ignorance test? Try the thought experiment! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

lmm 4y ago
> I'm open to any system of government that systematically tries to pass John Rawls' veil of ignorance[0] test. In theory, it doesn't even have to be democratic. In practice though, I haven't yet seen any non-democracy get even close. What about somewhere like Singapore (nominally democratic, but with a single party in power for decades and widely seen as authoritarian)? > Imagine being Uyghur, critical of Xi, religious, lgbti+, black or a combination of the above. Those are very visible examples, but if you're applying the veil of ignorance test you have to weight by how many people they actually apply to. (I wouldn't be surprised if all of them put together represented a smaller proportion of the population than incarcerated Americans, say). Every government system has some fraction of the population that it "gives up on", that much is unavoidable.
- markvdb 4y ago
  > Those are very visible examples, but if you're applying the veil of ignorance test you have to weight by how many people they actually apply to. (I wouldn't be surprised if all of them put together represented a smaller proportion of the population than incarcerated Americans, say). Every government system has some fraction of the population that it "gives up on", that much is unavoidable. I am deliberately applying an individual level test to the social level. This is not fuzzy utopian everything-should-be-perfect idealism though. Think of it as an extensive test suite to run against a government's policies. > What about somewhere like Singapore (nominally democratic, but with a single party in power for decades and widely seen as authoritarian)? EHARDFAIL: active lgbti+ prosecution.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > I am deliberately applying an individual level test to the social level. This is not fuzzy utopian everything-should-be-perfect idealism though. Think of it as an extensive test suite to run against a government's policies. OK, but that doesn't answer the question. What's the pass/fail criterion for your test suite? For China to be such a particularly bad case, it seems like you must be focusing on those particular groups and weighting them more highly than in the actual veil of ignorance test (where one assumes an equal chance of being anyone), no?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

lmm 4y ago

> I'm open to any system of government that systematically tries to pass John Rawls' veil of ignorance[0] test. In theory, it doesn't even have to be democratic. In practice though, I haven't yet seen any non-democracy get even close. What about somewhere like Singapore (nominally democratic, but with a single party in power for decades and widely seen as authoritarian)? > Imagine being Uyghur, critical of Xi, religious, lgbti+, black or a combination of the above. Those are very visible examples, but if you're applying the veil of ignorance test you have to weight by how many people they actually apply to. (I wouldn't be surprised if all of them put together represented a smaller proportion of the population than incarcerated Americans, say). Every government system has some fraction of the population that it "gives up on", that much is unavoidable.

markvdb 4y ago
> Those are very visible examples, but if you're applying the veil of ignorance test you have to weight by how many people they actually apply to. (I wouldn't be surprised if all of them put together represented a smaller proportion of the population than incarcerated Americans, say). Every government system has some fraction of the population that it "gives up on", that much is unavoidable. I am deliberately applying an individual level test to the social level. This is not fuzzy utopian everything-should-be-perfect idealism though. Think of it as an extensive test suite to run against a government's policies. > What about somewhere like Singapore (nominally democratic, but with a single party in power for decades and widely seen as authoritarian)? EHARDFAIL: active lgbti+ prosecution.
- lmm 4y ago
  > I am deliberately applying an individual level test to the social level. This is not fuzzy utopian everything-should-be-perfect idealism though. Think of it as an extensive test suite to run against a government's policies. OK, but that doesn't answer the question. What's the pass/fail criterion for your test suite? For China to be such a particularly bad case, it seems like you must be focusing on those particular groups and weighting them more highly than in the actual veil of ignorance test (where one assumes an equal chance of being anyone), no?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]