« Los Angeles DCFS caught, again ... | Main | Speak English? You teh racist!!1@! »

November 09, 2007

In the den of the totalitarian [il]liberal Left

Dan Collins @ Protein Wisdom points to a new "liberal" site. Some choice excerpts

Against equality of opportunity

One thing I have in mind here is a form of Dworkinian insurance. There should be redistributive taxes that replicate the insurance payments people would agree to behind what Rawls called a veil of ignorance. If people didn’t know what family they would be born into, they would probably agree to insurance contracts, in which those born to rich families - or with high skills - would pay out to those born to poor families.

In other words, the left should focus more upon (partial) equality of outcome, and less upon pursuing the illusion of equality of opportunity.

Warning: the above is not parody.

And one should disabuse themselves of actually asking for any serious debate of these people

I’m a little bit tired. I’m a little bit tired of arguing about why equality is important. Why human rights matter. Why poverty is not ok.

I’m a little bit tired of spending so much of my time defending the most basic principles of what I stand for. It serves to distract. What I need is a safer space where I don’t lose so much energy justifying why social and environmental justice are worth spending a lot of society’s money on.

Lovely.

Posted by Darleen at November 9, 2007 06:45 AM

Comments

But isn't that what taxes do, redistribute society's wealth? Isn't that the real question? Who exactly benefits from redistributive policies?

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 9, 2007 10:08 AM

I doubt you're even remotely familiar with John Rawls or his philosophy, so it's no surprise you don't understand that post. I realize that mindless outrage is a lot easier than learning and understanding, but you should really try a little of the latter sometime. The gratification is not as instant, but the rewards are much greater.

Posted by: Josh at November 9, 2007 10:29 AM

I realize that mindless outrage is a lot easier than learning and understanding, but you should really try a little of the latter sometime.

Sounds like you're pushing religion. You think just because somebody read Rawls, they therefor must be convinced? Maybe she has, and wasn't.

Sheesh. It was hard to escape the earnest palooka when I was in college.

Posted by: Twn at November 9, 2007 11:16 AM

I never suggested she should be convinced. I merely suggested she should understand the argument before sputtering in outrage. I don't think "know what you're talking about before you open your mouth" really qualifies as religion.

Posted by: Josh at November 9, 2007 12:07 PM

It's the preachy part of condescension. You presumed she did not understand Rawls, and worse, that she actually needed to understand him to poke fun at such vaporizing.

Not that I see the "mindless outrage" or "sputtering" either. She doesn't say much at all: she thinks the writer is silly and that the best evidence of that is his or her own words. Some people might treat Rawls the same way.

And I don't think you actually need to understand Rawls to roll your eyes at such droll self-pity as in the second quote.

Posted by: Twn at November 9, 2007 02:19 PM

Rawls is one of the dashboard saints of liberalism, a guy who like Chomsky is invoked to give a patina of intellectual respectability to a flavor of social theory that has been repeatedly exposed by the real world as an abject failure and a moral disgrace.

He advanced the notion of the "original position", in which when we're not staring at our navels and bemoaning inequality of outcome, we theorize what the world would be like if information that liberals deem irrelevant to "principles of social justice" was withheld from policymakers. That's the so-called "veil of ignorance" -- keep information from people to improve the chances they'll make what liberals think are good decisions.

Here, the argument the author is making goes like this:

(1) If people didn't know what sort of socio-economic class they'd be born into, they'd likely agree to pay insurance premiums against the chance that they get the short end.

(2) Thus, we should take that money and give it to poor people.

The illogic can't be overstated. The premise is suspect, and the policy proposal doesn't even follow from it. It's a shabby effort to, working backwards and employing dubious counterfactuals, find a rationalization to make ever larger wealth transfers from the rich to the poor. Why? Because, the author thinks, it's unfair that life is unfair.

Waah.

Posted by: BC at November 9, 2007 02:25 PM

But isn't that what taxes do, redistribute society's wealth?

Back in the olden days I was taught that taxes were the way the government got the revenue to pay for its necessary functions.

"Redistribution of wealth" isn't a necessary government function let alone its primary one.

Posted by: Darleen at November 9, 2007 06:00 PM

"I’m a little bit tired of spending so much of my time defending the most basic principles of what I stand for. It serves to distract. What I need is a safer space where I don’t lose so much energy justifying why social and environmental justice are worth spending a lot of society’s money on."

He needs a nap.Yes,naptime.

As for the safer place (read: an echo chamber) perhaps tenure is the solution because he will find it no where else.

Posted by: HughS at November 9, 2007 07:26 PM

John Rawls in A Theory of Justice talks about two basic principles of justice:

First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.

Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's
advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all. (Page 60, 1971 Ed Harvard)

The second term encompasses redistributive tax and social welfare programs. It's hard to see how anything but a progressive income tax can accomplish the second principle.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 10, 2007 11:14 AM

I'd say that calling a proposal to redistribute some wealth in accordance "totalitarian" amounts to sputtering outrage.

BC at least tried to argue against the proffered position, though s/he did not do a particularly great job. Still, that's one step better than just putting something up and saying "OMG see how evil libruls are!!"

Posted by: Josh at November 11, 2007 07:00 AM

Sorry to leave Rawls and go back to the headline, but . . .

It is not racist, it is culturist. Racism is evil and stupid. But race is clearly not a factor here.

This is a culturist issue. It is the majority culture, that of an English speaking nation, perpetuating itself.

The exact method of getting people to English, the way to do this without creating hostility, needs to be debated. But we should not debate the question. The question is, "What is good for America?" The premise of this question is that the nation must survive and is a good thing. If people do not think America is a good thing and are not willing to consider the needs of the larger nation, we have a problem.

We see in microcosm here why culturism is preferable to multiculturalism. Diversity can create tension. We need to get along. If people prioritize America we can discuss issues profitably. If they concede that they don't like or care about America, they need to be made to say so. We can then ask them to be more considerate to their adopted country and tell them of what America has built for the world.

Darleen is right. When they use "racist" it is an attempt to smear and shut up all those who care for our national cultural solvency. Well, culturism overtly holds that national cultural solvency should be considered a legitimate policy consideration. If we reply that it has nothing to do with race it has to do with cultural, we can at least say, "We are worried about what helps America, aren't you?" Then rather than the bitterness and silence that follows attacks of racism, dialogue might happen.

Learn more at www.culturism.us

We can see in this article the difficulty diversity creates.

Posted by: John Press at November 22, 2007 06:45 AM