Political Compass

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

I agree with that (it's social liberty, then maximin, then equality of oppertunity, IIRC). But the distribution stuff is why I can't accept him. His liberty stuff is only one part of the issue. It makes him different from, say, Jefferson. I was just saying I'm not a Rawlsian. His liberty parts are good, his distributive parts don't echo with me.

[Agathon]

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.

This is somewhat of a problem for Rawls, since focusing on the minimum leads us to ignore differences at the other end when the minimum remains constant.

But I don't see your problem. People in the Classical Liberal tradition of Smith argue for a "rising tide lifts all boats" economics, which is perfectly compatible with Rawls.

Rawls is also clear that the distribution liberty has lexical priority over the more vulgar areas of distribution, and this is something that rights based theorists have pretty much always believed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Everyone up to Oncle Boris.

Sky has to take the test again for me to consider him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rawls is also clear that the distribution liberty has lexical priority over the more vulgar areas of distribution, and this is something that rights based theorists have pretty much always believed.

While true, I prefer a guy that agrees more with me on the vulgar stuff . And I'm not sure if I'm really sure how he gets to where he does is all that sound (the original position / veil of ignorance / contractarian stuff is to contrived, IMO).

[Ben Kenobi]

The second test considers me an uncategoriseable Theist.

98% of test takers were more materialist than you.
98% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
97% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.
96% of test takers were more Marxist than you.

[Agathon]

While true, I prefer a guy that agrees more with me on the vulgar stuff.

But the kind of conservatism you seem to like (Burke) has to do with implementation rather than principles. It is perfectly possible that the world could be such as to allow a free market to be compatible with Rawlsian justice. Indeed, that is what conservatives who appeal to the invisible hand concede when they argue that individual interest should be let run free.


And, according to Ben's graph, I'm the most lefty on Poly.

All those reactionary tory fascists like Chegitz can kiss my butt!

[Moral Hazard]

We need Stalinists. I'm the only member of Authoritarian Left even I barely qualify.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

That's because it's an idealistic model of the real world. You can never take these things to the extremes. That doesn't mean his ideas are invalid.

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.

I'm certain that Rawls would not think that giving up a benefit for 99% of the population for a small cost to 1% of the poplulation is rational. You don't think it is. I don't think it is. I doubt if very many people think it is.

We have to consider real world policies though? What kind of policies fit this example? Do you have any that come to mind, because I can't think of any.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

I agree with that (it's social liberty, then maximin, then equality of oppertunity, IIRC). But the distribution stuff is why I can't accept him. His liberty stuff is only one part of the issue. It makes him different from, say, Jefferson. I was just saying I'm not a Rawlsian. His liberty parts are good, his distributive parts don't echo with me.

Then you don't agree with the veil of ignorance argument? You're just a straight natural rights person?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
But I don't see your problem. People in the Classical Liberal tradition of Smith argue for a "rising tide lifts all boats" economics, which is perfectly compatible with Rawls.

Nah, only people who already have money believe this. No one would fall for this crap behind the veil of ignorance.

[MalevolentLight]

Individual vs Social 1% were more individual
Theist vs Materialist 70% were more theist
Big Gov. vs small Gov 73% were more big gov.
Nationalist vs Internationalist 92% were more internationalist
Protectionist vs Free trader 15% of test takers were more free trade
Absolutist vs non Absolutist 0% were more absolutist
Controlled Market vs liberal market 4% were more liberal market
Marxist vs non Marxist 1% were more non marxist

Interestingly they call me a libertarian and say I should go to the liberalism forum. I went there and I didn't agree with any of them. This test

[Al B. Sure!]

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a big-government, nationalist, kind of person

25% were more individual
19% were more theist
3% were more big gov
4% were more nationalist
60% were more protectionist
24% were more absolutist
68% were more controlled market
36% were more marxist

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Individual vs Social 1% were more individual
Theist vs Materialist 70% were more theist
Big Gov. vs small Gov 73% were more big gov.
Nationalist vs Internationalist 92% were more internationalist
Protectionist vs Free trader 15% of test takers were more free trade
Absolutist vs non Absolutist 0% were more absolutist
Controlled Market vs liberal market 4% were more liberal market
Marxist vs non Marxist 1% were more non marxist

Interestingly they call me a libertarian and say I should go to the liberalism forum. I went there and I didn't agree with any of them. This test

OMG A COMMIE U HATE AMERICA GET HIM!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the kind of conservatism you seem to like (Burke) has to do with implementation rather than principles. It is perfectly possible that the world could be such as to allow a free market to be compatible with Rawlsian justice.

I do realize that Rawls isn't totally against a market. Though he favors more of a socialist market (with his 4 branches of government). I'm not sure I'm with his principles either, however. I'm not that interested in looking at the least advantaged member of society when deciding economic policy. Remember, I'm an evil capitalist .

I'm certain that Rawls would not think that giving up a benefit for 99% of the population for a small cost to 1% of the poplulation is rational.

Perhaps it is just him being idealistic, but I think he may say it would, because the 1% doesn't get worse if you don't do the change.

We have to consider real world policies though

Not really... Rawls admits that his whole exercise is highly theoretical contractual exercise.

Then you don't agree with the veil of ignorance argument? You're just a straight natural rights person?

I don't believe in 'natural' rights. I believe rights arise from governments/societies. I'm a relativist/deconstructionalist, etc.

[MalevolentLight]

How am I a commie? Only 1% are less marxist than me. Only 1% are more individual and only 4% are more liberal market. I'm also very in favor of small gov. I'm about as far from communist as you can get and somehow I'm listed as a liberal? I have to wonder why.