Hey, it's my old prof! I took this course (Justice) as a sophomore. It never really sat well with me at the time, but I couldn't put my finger on it because I was a lowly engineering undergrad. (By the way if you want to see something funny, put 20 engineering undergrads in a recitation with a philosophy grad student and watch all nuance fly out the window when the "right" answer seems obvious.)
At first I didn't realize this posting was a clip from the interview in March! I also didn't realize that interview was with Prof. Cohen when I listened to it as a podcast! The whole interview helped me to get a better grasp on a few of the aspects of Rawls that just didn't make sense when I was younger, and still don't. This plus an interview I found of a Bob Garmong on JS Mill have put that class in a better context for me about why I disagreed with a lot of the directions he took things.
This guest is not a clear communicator.......and not the first time on.....I hope Glenn will increase people with "new ideas". Granted, there are an infinite number of ways to interpret reality...that is true as far as it goes. However, it misses the point.....there is not an infinite amount of "WORKABLE" interpretations. Only in the west can a person peddling non workable philosophies earn a living.
We see in the west a general "caste like" system of stratification DESPITE near free and ubiquitous access to skills and knowledge (internet) as well legal regimes that enforces equality of opportunity. If you do not see EQUALITY of results in western countries (or anywhere else).....it is because people differ in IQ and personality and thus will never attain equal results. Unfortunately, because of the high heritability of those qualities there will always be a stratification within groups and obviously a more recognizable stratification between ancestral groups. The interesting question is what to do with that reality. I say the concept that needs to be trumpeted is that we are EACH made in the image and likeness of God and get our human dignity and worth from that fact.
Using governments to steal from one group to give to other groups is just a way to isolate us from one another and keep the new aristocracy (bureaucrats) in power. Eliminating all forms of government enforced wealth transfers (welfare, food, medical etc) would be the single greatest thing you can do to MARKEDLY improve the life of the poor (lower caste) over time. It would provide a forcing function (dare i say NUDGE?) to put families back together and require more direct involvement of those with natural advantageous to give freely of their time talent and treasure to less fortunate..... we need a return to "noblesse oblige". Educational institutions, the media, etc. pitting the lower caste against smart and hardworking people will just drive the productive away.
Obviously we can't go to zero all at once.......my proposal is to simply stop "increasing" the welfare budgets. Over time (say 40 years?), through the effect of inflation, the purchasing power of welfare benefits will be greatly reduced. As a result, there will be a significant increase in intact families , church membership and social fraternal organizations to fill the still present needs. These pro community strategies make more sense as a way of servicing the poor. and during that 40 years of declining purchasing power, the government workers will have to MANAGE the budget (get off their ass) . If a more deserving mother/kids needs to be added....then someone who is not making progress, or been on too long, has to come off. A country cannot have a welfare program with no limiting factor. Otherwise you might get Millions of lower caste peoples violating the sovereignty of western countries . ;)
Unfortunately Rawlsianism has no expression in contemporary U.S. politics. We have two authoritarian parties, one of which cloaks itself in empty egalitarian rhetoric and the other of which cloaks itself in empty liberty rhetoric. We have a pseudo-first principle party pitted against a pseudo-second principle party publicly waging culture war against each other while privately working together to subvert both principles to appease the donor class and the deep state bureaucrats.
Then there are some libertarian voices that genuinely give voice to the first principle. But they go on to completely disregard the second.
I remember coming across Rawls in my college political philosophy class and being blown away both by its sensibility and its accessibility. The only reason I can come up with as to why Rawlsianism is not the dominant political ideology in America is endemic corruption.
Hey, it's my old prof! I took this course (Justice) as a sophomore. It never really sat well with me at the time, but I couldn't put my finger on it because I was a lowly engineering undergrad. (By the way if you want to see something funny, put 20 engineering undergrads in a recitation with a philosophy grad student and watch all nuance fly out the window when the "right" answer seems obvious.)
At first I didn't realize this posting was a clip from the interview in March! I also didn't realize that interview was with Prof. Cohen when I listened to it as a podcast! The whole interview helped me to get a better grasp on a few of the aspects of Rawls that just didn't make sense when I was younger, and still don't. This plus an interview I found of a Bob Garmong on JS Mill have put that class in a better context for me about why I disagreed with a lot of the directions he took things.
This guest is not a clear communicator.......and not the first time on.....I hope Glenn will increase people with "new ideas". Granted, there are an infinite number of ways to interpret reality...that is true as far as it goes. However, it misses the point.....there is not an infinite amount of "WORKABLE" interpretations. Only in the west can a person peddling non workable philosophies earn a living.
We see in the west a general "caste like" system of stratification DESPITE near free and ubiquitous access to skills and knowledge (internet) as well legal regimes that enforces equality of opportunity. If you do not see EQUALITY of results in western countries (or anywhere else).....it is because people differ in IQ and personality and thus will never attain equal results. Unfortunately, because of the high heritability of those qualities there will always be a stratification within groups and obviously a more recognizable stratification between ancestral groups. The interesting question is what to do with that reality. I say the concept that needs to be trumpeted is that we are EACH made in the image and likeness of God and get our human dignity and worth from that fact.
Using governments to steal from one group to give to other groups is just a way to isolate us from one another and keep the new aristocracy (bureaucrats) in power. Eliminating all forms of government enforced wealth transfers (welfare, food, medical etc) would be the single greatest thing you can do to MARKEDLY improve the life of the poor (lower caste) over time. It would provide a forcing function (dare i say NUDGE?) to put families back together and require more direct involvement of those with natural advantageous to give freely of their time talent and treasure to less fortunate..... we need a return to "noblesse oblige". Educational institutions, the media, etc. pitting the lower caste against smart and hardworking people will just drive the productive away.
Obviously we can't go to zero all at once.......my proposal is to simply stop "increasing" the welfare budgets. Over time (say 40 years?), through the effect of inflation, the purchasing power of welfare benefits will be greatly reduced. As a result, there will be a significant increase in intact families , church membership and social fraternal organizations to fill the still present needs. These pro community strategies make more sense as a way of servicing the poor. and during that 40 years of declining purchasing power, the government workers will have to MANAGE the budget (get off their ass) . If a more deserving mother/kids needs to be added....then someone who is not making progress, or been on too long, has to come off. A country cannot have a welfare program with no limiting factor. Otherwise you might get Millions of lower caste peoples violating the sovereignty of western countries . ;)
Unfortunately Rawlsianism has no expression in contemporary U.S. politics. We have two authoritarian parties, one of which cloaks itself in empty egalitarian rhetoric and the other of which cloaks itself in empty liberty rhetoric. We have a pseudo-first principle party pitted against a pseudo-second principle party publicly waging culture war against each other while privately working together to subvert both principles to appease the donor class and the deep state bureaucrats.
Then there are some libertarian voices that genuinely give voice to the first principle. But they go on to completely disregard the second.
I remember coming across Rawls in my college political philosophy class and being blown away both by its sensibility and its accessibility. The only reason I can come up with as to why Rawlsianism is not the dominant political ideology in America is endemic corruption.