Socialist fable
“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 ( Read more... )
Ah, the typical neo-communist tales that my friends link toAll the more telling since Sen passes for ( Read more... )
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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 ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Is it possible in your view, for a philosopher discussing justice to not be totalitarian? Must they add the caveat "but my ideas should never ever be taken into account when making political decisions"? Reading just your comment, I'd think that Sen was advocating rule by philosopher kings, but I see that nowhere else, including the link you provide as example.
If you're interested in Democracy, have you read about Public Choice Theory?
I have not. Is The Calculus of Consent worth reading? (I assume Collective Choice and Social Welfare would not be your first choice on that front.)
For libertarian democracy, see http://www.panarchy.org/anonymous/democracy.1962.htmlI suppose that covers the idea pretty well, though the can-of-beans example seems to be tilting at a strawman. The idea of panarchy is interesting, though, most of what I've heard from libertarian ( ... )
Reply
The Calculus of Consent is great, I'm told.
Panarchy or democracy with a small d are the same thing as anarcho-capitalism, modulo the name and associated explanation.
Where exactly did you get the certainty that there somehow exists some concept of "democracy" that is both achievable and desirable?
Reply
I still see no evidence you're not making that conclusion up out of whole cloth and stuffing it in Sen's mouth. But perhaps reviewers just leave that conclusion as a surprise for the reader?
Where exactly did you get the certainty that there somehow exists some concept of "democracy" that is both achievable and desirable?Achievable as the perfect realization of some ideal? I don't expect real-world societies to exactly match any social theory ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I clearly don't see it the same way as you. Do you think that it's obvious that "whatever [parents] do can be justified by the anointed moral authority"? (Which is who, exactly?) What is that, the divine right of parents? Makes no sense under any moral philosophy I'd ascribe to.
I'll stick to my point: I see no reason to believe that Sen is concluding that "anything is justified" or that readers would be reasonable in taking his statements that way.
If your theory of democracy doesn't apply to reality, it's false, you've just been drinking propaganda. For a better theory, see Public Choice Theory.
Models are approximations, but they still apply to reality. As to whether public choice theory is the best model for the situation in question, I'll have to hold off until I learn more about public choice theory.
As for the Churchill quote, maybe you or I should translate this to English
I'm sure you could do a better translation than I.
It ( ... )
Reply
Reply
So that's the be-all/end-all of "morally justified" to you?
Everything you say about Sen in that comment still has the problem that it's not connected to anything he actually says or does.
with ballots cast being mystically transsubstantiated into the will of the people, anointing rulers into representing the nation
Now you're putting words into my mouth. There's nothing magical about making policy or appointing policy-makers by majority vote.
It's not a matter of subjectivist preferences.
"I, personally, prefer to live under a democracy as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship" is not a preference?
And why should yours matter more than mine or anyone else's?
It shouldn't, you'll find no argument from me there.
In the end, subjectivism is but dismissing reason and calling for force.
Easy to think you're the only reasonable one when you replace your opponents with ones made of straw.
It's a form of tyranny that has brought hundreds of megadeaths on earth, unimaginable before.If that' ( ... )
Reply
So that's the be-all/end-all of "morally justified" to you?
We libertarians distinguish Justice from Morality, amongst other concepts.
See Christian Michel's classic:
Ought We To Obey The Laws Of Our Country?
Everything you say about Sen in that comment still has the problem that it's not connected to anything he actually says or does.
It's exactly about what he says and does.
Words are actions, not descriptions.
Who is invited to take what action by his book, with what justification?
Who is invited to take no action, and denounced as unjustified?
Rulers are invited to do whatever they damn please,
but to first seek the approval of someone such as Sen
who'll invent a justification for what they do.
Citizens are invited to obey, and never act but
by trying to influence government through the myth of "democracy".
That's the end of it.
Sen denies that any objective principle that binds rulers.
He's offering his services as an intellectual whore
who will justify anything.
Reply
I don't deny that statement, but how is that an answer to my question?
Who is invited to take what action by his book, and with what justification? Who is invited to take no action, and denounced as unjustified?
The reviews don't say, and I haven't read the book, so I couldn't comment. But as to your answers, I reiterate that I wish you'd cite something more specific than your imagination.
Reply
Reply
Ah, I see. Your irregular capitalization above was "I am using this word in a way substantially different from what most people mean" capitalization. (Same denotation as scare quotes, opposite connotation.)
(Alternately, that is the Grammar for Speaking from deontological moral Authority.)
Reply
you'll find no argument from me there [about your [l33tminion]'s preference mattering more than anyone else's]
Then why mention your preference at all?
You seem to argue as if words have no subtext and context,
as if their logical content is all that matters,
and there isn't a message in the selection of what is said.
Just like Sen's message is all in his framing of the "problem"
and not in the indecisive (lack of) logical content in his (non-) answers,
your choice of framing matters,
and what more is the main message of your comment.
Reply
Leave a comment