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.

Re: Implicit messages

[l33tminion]

Then why mention your preference at all?

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?"

Subjectivism

[fare]

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.

Re: Subjectivism

[l33tminion]

Your framing the issue in terms of preferences (a.k.a Subjectivism) is what makes your stance not just unreasonable but anti-reason.

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.