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... )
2- You seem to have this usual false dichotomy between theory and practice. If some theory doesn't apply, it is false and stupid to accept the theory and say it's "just theory" that only applies to "perfect world" (i.e. not at all), the correct stance is to reject the theory as false and look for a better theory. 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.
3- Once equipped with a proper theory of what democracy IS, in reality, you'll realize that it's nothing good, was never good, cannot possibly be good. That's what I mean when I claim that no achievable notion of democracy (i.e. that matters in practice) is ever desirable (i.e. there are much better and cheaper options). To cite Hoppe, Democracy is a God that Failed.
Sen's is a fable to totalitarian power, disguised as democracy. The rulers can do anything, they can spin anything as "justice", the only constraint is to get away with it.
As for the Churchill quote, maybe you or I should translate this to English:
http://fare.livejournal.com/158090.html
Constitutional Democracy has killed over a million americans in a civil war and foreign wars. It has brought a government far more taxing and invasive that whatever existed before. It has destroyed the rule of law. The constitution is a lure that doesn't protect anyone but the rulers themselves.
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 has brought a government far more taxing and invasive that whatever existed before.
Does that imply that you're disagreeing with my preference? If so, I wish that you'd bite that bullet explicitly.
It mystifies me to see libertarians decry democracy as tyranny, but baffles me to see them decry democracy as the worst form of tyranny. Is it just that if the idea of democracy never existed (or never became popular), a libertarian/anarchist revolution would be a lot easier to promote? Or is there something else to it?
It has destroyed the rule of law.
Odd statement. Which law?
Reply
2- Readers are meant to be confused, not enlightened, by the lies of Sen. Sen goes to great length to assert that all "conceptions" of justice are equally valid depending on the context, and that it requires a great mind and soul like his to discover which should be picked in any given context.
3- If the approximation applies and yields useful answers, then clearly it's not to be dismissed as "mere theory". If it's to be dismissed, then your model is FALSE FALSE FALSE, not "mere theory". Your model seems right out of government propaganda, with ballots cast being mystically transsubstantiated into the will of the people, anointing rulers into representing the nation.
4- I'll translate some day I'm even more depressed than now.
5- It's not a matter of subjectivist preferences. And why should yours matter more than mine or anyone else's? In the end, subjectivism is but dismissing reason and calling for force.
6- Democracy is tyranny. It's a form of tyranny that has brought hundreds of megadeaths on earth, unimaginable before. Way worse than any of the kings it replaced. Of course, those kings were doomed by inbreeding, guns and the printing press.
7- If you want to understand the Law, read Bruno Leoni "Freedom and the Law". It's free online.
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's the comparison you're using, you should compare democracies to contemporary monarchies, dictatorships, and the like, with similar levels of population and technology.
Of course, those kings were doomed by inbreeding, guns and the printing press.
Doomed to be replaced by what? And you realize there are still hereditary monarchies, right?
If you want to understand the Law, read Bruno Leoni "Freedom and the Law".
And then I'll understand why democracy in particular "destroyed the rule of law"? All right.
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
2- Parents, not children are invited to act and decide in a "just" way. And the metaphor is of rulers as parents, the rest of society as children. It's not my imagination - it's correctly reading the metaphor Sen uses to frame his debate.
You can try to read his book "An Idea of Justice" (with plenty of excerpts on Amazon). It's mostly emotional hogwash and pop philosophy, written from the point of view of a hypothetical philosopher king in charge of designing society. No, you won't find such assumptions explicitly laid out. The guy is obviously an anti-rationalist incapable of clear conceptualization. You'll have to decode. Too bad for you if you can't.
What next, you want him to admit to having to intellectual integrity? Not only does the guy not have it, the very concept is foreign to him. I have to reckon he has a talent in presenting pop culture as if it were advanced scholarship, and thus letting his ignorant readers believe they are intelligent and deep. I guess this talent is worth a Nobel Prize - making the jury think it thinks.
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
If "desirable" doesn't have to do with preferences, I'm not quite sure what you mean by the word. If you prefer living in a (nominal) democracy to a monarchy or dictatorship, I wonder how that can fit with your statements implying democracy is the worst tyranny possible. And if you would prefer living in a monarchy or a dictatorship rather than a democracy, I'd be curious as to why (and why you didn't act on that preference).
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
Sure, I'm only objecting to you jumping to the wild conclusion that Sen implies anything is justified. And now you're doing the same thing to me: I say "I don't see where that conclusion is coming from," you say, "Are you saying I can't draw any conclusion?"
Reply
Easy to think you're the only reasonable one when you replace your opponents with ones made of straw.
Your framing the issue in terms of preferences (a.k.a Subjectivism)
is what makes your stance not just unreasonable but anti-reason.
If subjective preferences are to decide the discussion over objective arguments,
then only force is left to determine who's to win.
And indeed, that's the ultimate conclusion of Sen:
that justice is subjective, and that government force is legitimate
to settle what in the end are but diverging preferences.
Reply
If "reason" is defined as making decisions in strict accordance with the axioms of libertarianism, than I agree.
And indeed, that's the ultimate conclusion of Sen: that justice is subjective, and that government force is legitimate to settle what in the end are but diverging preferences.
Now that, unlike your previous characterization, seems mostly accurate. You don't hyperbolically accuse Sen of being willing to justify anything (e.g. puppy kicking, genocide) for a price, but instead focus on the essence of your disagreement.
Reply
Leave a comment