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.
I have to say that I don't find this "philosophy" sensible or accessible in any way whatsoever except as a thought experiment and is NOT the dominant ideology as is ludicrous in a country as diverse as America. The redistribution of wealth to even begin to try to equalize skill levels would be so confiscatory that even the Progressive Hollywood types, NYT editorialists and pro-athletes would scream and to get to the level of equalization of skill & taxation would be so far in the future we'd colonize other planets first. The only time I could see this possibly having been implementable would have been just after the Civil War when most jobs were unskilled or semi-skilled, the immigration rates were still fairly low and almost everyone bought into the protestant work-ethic. Then we may have been able to transition to more skill varieties and educational needs slowly. The diversity of languages, attitudes toward work and family, value systems, etc. and not "endemic corruption" make it unworkable. Also who would decide where the money goes, what particular education and/or job anyone gets? As long as there is still a need for markets of any sort wouldn't there still be disparities? How would differences in cultures, political and non-political, be managed? Or once all is smoothed out would we all be the same? How boring and dystopian!
Nancy, I think you're confusing Rawls and Marx. The goal of Rawls is absolutely not to redistribute wealth and equalize skill levels. To the contrary, the goal of Rawls is to maximize technological and material progress without leaving disadvantaged people totally out to dry. It is a balance of the tension between market dynamism and progress with inequality. From the original position and behind the veil of ignorance, you would not want to suffocate growth for the sake of equality, as everyone would be worse off (see, e.g., the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, etc.). You would not want someone with an IQ of 70 to have the same amount of power and resources as, say, Elon Musk, as that would make everyone worse off. The Rawlsian balance would be struck not through massive market-killing redistribution, but through cultivation of market dynamism along with some sort of safety net to prevent the worst off from starving. Rawlsianism specifically recognizes that people have different levels of skills and talents, and that those skills and talents should be cultivated for the benefit of all. This is not Marxism, but simply a pragmatic balance of the sometimes conflicting American ideals expressed in our founding documents.
Thanks for replying. I think I understood the difference, but I guess I should have started differently. I still don't see how any attempt to "balance the tension" wouldn't require significant increases in taxes for the needed social programs and taxation is redistribution by any other name even if it's corporate vs personal. If the idea is for the private sector to have a part, then how do you encourage this without financial incentives of some kind which would bring us right back to where we are. Isn't that how states compete now with tax incentives and educated workforces. We all believe in giving assistance to those disadvantaged, though in this time of identity politics on both sides, universal victimhood and required recognition of diverse cultural differences, I'm not sure who is not disadvantaged any more. We would have to totally rework the "safety net" to incentivize work, encourage committed relationships & discourage single parenthood as the present system does. Please continue to teach me more about workable solutions and Rawlism.
It is an open question for economists like Professor Loury to answer as far as the optimal tax rates under a Rawlsian analysis. Given the numbers of people living under bridges and looking for food in dumpsters in coastal cities throughout the U.S., I don't think we have it quite right. Then there are some European countries that have probably gone too far in the other direction, disincentivizing work and strangling progress in the name of equality. Singapore seems to have a pretty good balance of private sector dynamism without pushing people into destitution, though they benefit from unique geography. There's a lively debate to be had there and I really have no answer. Rawls simply provides us with a very good framework within which to have that debate.
I agree with you on identity politics. That is clearly not something anyone would want using a Rawlsian framework. Equalizing average outcomes between various skin color groups is a tremendously stupid policy goal. Variance in group outcomes is, as Glenn frequently explains, a multivariate phenomenon with culture appearing to play an outsize role. State policy seeking to equalize group outcomes necessarily trends towards totalitarianism. Equalizing group outcomes would run afoul of Rawls' fundamental requirement that:
"These principles are to be arranged in a serial order with the first principle prior to the second. This ordering means that infringements of the basic equal liberties protected by the first principle cannot be justified, or compensated for, by greater social and economic advantages."
The Successor Ideology, a.k.a. the Woke, flagrantly and expressly violate this requirement. There is no place for Woke "equity" in a Rawlsian analysis. Affirmative action or otherwise elevating people in society based on immutable characteristics instead of based on merit would not meet the "to everyone's advantage" requirement of the second principle. The second principle requires that the most qualified and competent people be given the most responsibility, such that everyone can be assured that their brain surgeon is the best person for the job, rather than a beneficiary of some special privilege awarded on the basis of irrelevant immutable characteristics. Rawls' second principle approaches equality from the level of the individual, not the "tribe." The Rawlsian analysis is colorblind.
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.
I have to say that I don't find this "philosophy" sensible or accessible in any way whatsoever except as a thought experiment and is NOT the dominant ideology as is ludicrous in a country as diverse as America. The redistribution of wealth to even begin to try to equalize skill levels would be so confiscatory that even the Progressive Hollywood types, NYT editorialists and pro-athletes would scream and to get to the level of equalization of skill & taxation would be so far in the future we'd colonize other planets first. The only time I could see this possibly having been implementable would have been just after the Civil War when most jobs were unskilled or semi-skilled, the immigration rates were still fairly low and almost everyone bought into the protestant work-ethic. Then we may have been able to transition to more skill varieties and educational needs slowly. The diversity of languages, attitudes toward work and family, value systems, etc. and not "endemic corruption" make it unworkable. Also who would decide where the money goes, what particular education and/or job anyone gets? As long as there is still a need for markets of any sort wouldn't there still be disparities? How would differences in cultures, political and non-political, be managed? Or once all is smoothed out would we all be the same? How boring and dystopian!
Nancy, I think you're confusing Rawls and Marx. The goal of Rawls is absolutely not to redistribute wealth and equalize skill levels. To the contrary, the goal of Rawls is to maximize technological and material progress without leaving disadvantaged people totally out to dry. It is a balance of the tension between market dynamism and progress with inequality. From the original position and behind the veil of ignorance, you would not want to suffocate growth for the sake of equality, as everyone would be worse off (see, e.g., the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, etc.). You would not want someone with an IQ of 70 to have the same amount of power and resources as, say, Elon Musk, as that would make everyone worse off. The Rawlsian balance would be struck not through massive market-killing redistribution, but through cultivation of market dynamism along with some sort of safety net to prevent the worst off from starving. Rawlsianism specifically recognizes that people have different levels of skills and talents, and that those skills and talents should be cultivated for the benefit of all. This is not Marxism, but simply a pragmatic balance of the sometimes conflicting American ideals expressed in our founding documents.
Thanks for replying. I think I understood the difference, but I guess I should have started differently. I still don't see how any attempt to "balance the tension" wouldn't require significant increases in taxes for the needed social programs and taxation is redistribution by any other name even if it's corporate vs personal. If the idea is for the private sector to have a part, then how do you encourage this without financial incentives of some kind which would bring us right back to where we are. Isn't that how states compete now with tax incentives and educated workforces. We all believe in giving assistance to those disadvantaged, though in this time of identity politics on both sides, universal victimhood and required recognition of diverse cultural differences, I'm not sure who is not disadvantaged any more. We would have to totally rework the "safety net" to incentivize work, encourage committed relationships & discourage single parenthood as the present system does. Please continue to teach me more about workable solutions and Rawlism.
It is an open question for economists like Professor Loury to answer as far as the optimal tax rates under a Rawlsian analysis. Given the numbers of people living under bridges and looking for food in dumpsters in coastal cities throughout the U.S., I don't think we have it quite right. Then there are some European countries that have probably gone too far in the other direction, disincentivizing work and strangling progress in the name of equality. Singapore seems to have a pretty good balance of private sector dynamism without pushing people into destitution, though they benefit from unique geography. There's a lively debate to be had there and I really have no answer. Rawls simply provides us with a very good framework within which to have that debate.
I agree with you on identity politics. That is clearly not something anyone would want using a Rawlsian framework. Equalizing average outcomes between various skin color groups is a tremendously stupid policy goal. Variance in group outcomes is, as Glenn frequently explains, a multivariate phenomenon with culture appearing to play an outsize role. State policy seeking to equalize group outcomes necessarily trends towards totalitarianism. Equalizing group outcomes would run afoul of Rawls' fundamental requirement that:
"These principles are to be arranged in a serial order with the first principle prior to the second. This ordering means that infringements of the basic equal liberties protected by the first principle cannot be justified, or compensated for, by greater social and economic advantages."
The Successor Ideology, a.k.a. the Woke, flagrantly and expressly violate this requirement. There is no place for Woke "equity" in a Rawlsian analysis. Affirmative action or otherwise elevating people in society based on immutable characteristics instead of based on merit would not meet the "to everyone's advantage" requirement of the second principle. The second principle requires that the most qualified and competent people be given the most responsibility, such that everyone can be assured that their brain surgeon is the best person for the job, rather than a beneficiary of some special privilege awarded on the basis of irrelevant immutable characteristics. Rawls' second principle approaches equality from the level of the individual, not the "tribe." The Rawlsian analysis is colorblind.