Socialist fable

[fare]

“Imagine a parent with one flute and three children, each of whom wants the flute. The first child says ‘I made it’; the second says ‘I’m the only one who can play it’; the third says ‘I have no other toys.’ Who should get the flute?” - Amartya Sen

Ah, the typical neo-communist tales that my friends link toAll the more telling since Sen passes for

Comments

[l33tminion]

One commenter to the link even suggests: The parent asks all three the same question: "Do you mind if the other children and me share this flute with you?"

Was that comment deleted? It's not at the post you link to. I assume that post was linked from another post?

Also important context: How does Sen answer that question?

To top it all, the tale is meant as a metaphor of society, with government being the parent of the citizens, and the unwitting listener being invited to identify with said parent (whereas in actuality, he plays the role of the kid).

Which kid?

If it's meant to be a metaphor for a democratic society, at the very least, the metaphor is poorly chosen. Democratic governments are both controlled and funded by the people they govern, families are (generally) neither controlled nor funded by the children.

Sen-ile

[fare]

I assume that post was linked from another post?

Facebook private discussion.

Also important context: How does Sen answer that question?

1- Make a guess. 2- JFGI "Amartya Sen flute children".

Come back after you do 1 then 2, then we'll discuss.
All I can say is his answer is typical of the totalitarian intelligentsia.

Which kid?

Depends on whom you're talking about,
but it doesn't matter that much, really.

If it's meant to be a metaphor for a democratic society, at the very least, the metaphor is poorly chosen. Democratic governments are both controlled and funded by the people they govern, families are (generally) neither controlled nor funded by the children.

Oh my! You've completely drunk the democratic kool-aid, and are confusing the propaganda with the reality. I'm always amazed to see such parasites eat someone's brain yet the brain still looks like it's working mostly normally.

Re: Sen-ile

[l33tminion]

Come back after you do 1 then 2, then we'll discuss.

My guess was that Sen would argue that no one prevailing theory of justice covers the entire hypothetical (given that the post you linked to is titled "the limits of justice" and the usual habits of philosophers). That guess seems to be more or less correct (Sen has a bone to pick with Rawls in particular, evidently, but I don't think I'd understand those arguments well without actually reading the book). Of the Google results, I couldn't find anything that suggests that Sen gives a definitive answer to the hypothetical. Maybe he doesn't, or maybe that's just the vague nature of book reviews. You seem to be confident otherwise, so perhaps you have a better link?

Either way, I agree with your answer to this particular hypothetical. However, I'll note that in your own evaluation, you don't stop at libertarian principles and move on to appeal to consequentialism. In the hypothetical, the libertarian and the utilitarian analyses actually line up pretty well. So do others

Totalitarian Sen

[fare]

Indeed, Sen's answer is that it's a complex question for which all answers can be justified in theory based on various conceptions of justice, and to be resolved in the end by experts such as him. In other words, the Government is almighty, its decisions absolutely arbitrary, it can say whatever it wants as long as it employs ideologists such as Sen to produce a justification to its deeds, and mere citizens such as you and I have no say whatsoever in the matter. Can you spell TOTALITARIANISM? Example link: http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2009/7/17/4257431.html... )