Political Compass

[Imran Siddiqui]

Me a conservative and Imran a liberal?

Libertarian... there is a difference .

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
His ideas that every policy must be considered on the basis of the lowest member of society is something I don't accept. He thinks if something benefits 99% of people a lot and 1% get a small bit worse, then it is a bad policy.

Taking the original position wouldn't necessarily lead you to choose an egalitarian economic policy. F'rinstance, in your example, it's possible that a policy that greatly benefits 99% of the populace but slightly hinders 1% of the populace would wind up hindering you in particular, but the odds are a lot better that it would benefit you since the odds are a lot better that you'll be in the 99% group than in the 1% group. At the same time, taking the original position to some extent reduces the risks that a tyranny of the majority will take hold -- f'rinstance, if a policy would slightly benefit 99% of the populace but completely destroy 1% of the populace, then presumably you wouldn't adopt the policy due the disastrous results were you to wind up being in the soon-to-be-annihilated 1% of the populace.

[Kidlicious]

I don't believe in these things. There's only left and right. Not up and down. You're either down for the cause or your not.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Libertarian... there is a difference .

Indeed. Libertarians are even worse.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He thinks if something benefits 99% of people a lot and 1% get a small bit worse, then it is a bad policy.

This is not correct. You don't understand. It's completely possible that this policy would be accepted by Rawls. All that is required is that agents don't know if they will benefit or pay the cost. If everyone agrees to take the chance than the policy is good, according to Rawls.

[Fake Boris]

Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Economic: - 8.00
Social: -6.15

Damn, I'm getting more authoritarian

You are even more fascist than I am.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is not correct. You don't understand. It's completely possible that this policy would be accepted by Rawls.

It is totally inconsistent with his policy of the maximin, so no it most likely would not be accepted by Rawls. Perhaps you are the one who does not understand.

Taking the original position wouldn't necessarily lead you to choose an egalitarian economic policy.

Perhaps not, but Rawls doesn't see it that way. The maximin means you got to maximize the minimum. The one at the bottom is where the focus is to Rawls. I don't think he believes that in the original position that people would vote to reduce the minority's economic power.

[Imran Siddiqui]

More from Rawls.

Theory of Justice, Chapter 26, Footnote 19 (at the end):

The term "maximin" means the maximum minimorum; and the rule directs our attention to the worst that can happen under any proposed course of action, and to decide in light of that.

I see that as if a proposal makes the 1% worse off, it cannot pass. It'll violate the maximin, which Rawls says is preeminent in the original position.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is not correct. You don't understand. It's completely possible that this policy would be accepted by Rawls.

It is totally inconsistent with his policy of the maximin, so no it most likely would not be accepted by Rawls. Perhaps you are the one who does not understand.

You can't possibly believe that he meant absolute maximization of the minimum. Oh, but I forgot that you only see things as absolutes.

Rawls meant that no one would want to risk being some lowly creature that sucks the toe jam out of some King's big toe. He didn't mean that people wouldn't make rational decisions.

[Geronimo]

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the polytubbies that our nation's leaders most resemble would appear to be Albert Speer and Fez.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can't possibly believe that he meant absolute maximization of the minimum.

From all of his statements, that is what it seems like. Look at the footnote I quoted. Actually within that footnote there is a numerical example.

He didn't mean that people wouldn't make rational decisions.

To him the rational decision was that people would focus on the minimum in making their decisions.

[Kuciwalker]

What I got last time: 3.0 economic -3.0 libertarian

I'm not bothering to take it again, as the three times I've taken in I've been within something like .01 of those numbers.

[Agathon]

I see that as if a proposal makes the 1% worse off, it cannot pass. It'll violate the maximin, which Rawls says is preeminent in the original position.

Yes, but you have to remember that the material on liberty and the distribution of such rights comes before the material on distributive justice, and all of this comes later, after the material you mention.

[Agathon]

i.e. Rawls is concerned with more than distributing stuff.