IRC log started Fri Feb 16 22:00

   Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Tonight's discussion on Egalitarianism
   will be moderated by Tym Parsons. Before we begin, I'd like to
   make sure you know that discussions on this channel are 
   copyrighted by Tom Wright and myself. Redistributing channel
   logs in any form without prior written permission on the channel
   owners is prohibited.
   Now, I'll turn the channel over to Tym. Hope you all enjoy
   tonight's topic. :)

<<Action>> Tym surveys everyone.
<Tym> First I want to say why this topic is important and why it really 
   ticks me off.
<Tym> Egalitarianism, informally defined, is "a level playing field"..
<Tym> and has been used to justify the notion of entitlements, particularly 
   welfare and affirmative action.
<Tym> It's most notable defender has been John Rawls, who put out an 
   extremely influential book 25 years ago called _A Theory of Justice_.
<Tym> Now, as the whole notion of entitlements is being questioned, 
   liberals routinely trot out Rawls as a justification.
<Tym> For that reason, I think that no positive change can occur 
   politically unless he is publically refuted.
<Tym> OK, now to pose some questions.
<Tym> What is the definition of "justice"?
<Tym> Anyone?
<Subetai> Recognition of people for who they are, the values they 
   represent, and treating them accordingly?
<Tym> OK..
<DanH> Didn't Miss Rand tear up his BS in one of her articles?
<Tym> so you treat people as they deserve then?
<Tym> Dan: LP did.
<Subetai> Is there more to the question? A legal perspective?
<Wright> giving to each man what he deserves
<Tym> OK, next question..
<Subetai> Legally, it's making sure people get what they deserve.
<Tym> On what prior concepts does "justice" depend, epistemologically and 
   _fundamentally_? 
<Subetai> Causality.
<DanH> Tym: Identification.
<Tym> Subetai, Dan: bit narrower :)
<Clay> Dan, yes, AR ripped Rawls in P:WNI?
<Tym> What is the conceptual chain?
<Tym> How is justice validated?
<Subetai> Identity - Causality : Action - Consequences
<Clay> Dan, Chapter 11
<Tym> How do we know what people deserve?
<Subetai> Clay: Let Tym get to it. He's moderating the show.
<DanH> Tym: By gathering evidence about their behavior and from that 
   identifying their natures.
<Tym> Dan: you mean whether they're behaving _morally_?
<DanH> Tym: Yes, if you include actions that do not bear on the rights of 
   others.
<Tym> Dan: what I'm asking is: we try to identify their nature as being 
   moral or immoral?
<Tym> ..and then give them what they deserve accordingly?
<Subetai> The conceptual chain is that man needs to evaluate things - 
   justice is evaluating people.
<Tym> Subetai: according to what standard?
<DanH> Whether they act morally or not, yes.  And whether they act stupidly 
   or not.
<Tym> Dan got it.
<Subetai> Tym: For "Objective justice", the standard would be a rational 
   standard.
<Clay> stupidly?
<DanH> And, of course, what bearing their actions have on my interests 
   (i.e. is this someone with whom I might wish to trade).
<BetsyS> Also whether they act in a way that is valuable or useful or 
   interesting to me.
<Tym> Subetai: and morality presumes free will, right?
<Subetai> But for "justice" per se, there's *some* standard, but we don't 
   specify *what* standard.
<Subetai> Tym: yes.
<MrSubtle> say Sanc whom?
<Tym> Subetai: we don't specify the standard of justice?
<DanH> Tym: Yes it does.  Does Rawls deny free will?  I wouldn't be 
   surprised.
<Tym> Dan: I'll get to that :)
<Subetai> Tym: No, I said that for the concept "justice" we don't specify 
   the standard of evaluation.
<Tym> Subetai: but at some point the whole thing depends on volition?
<DanH> KJ: Provided of course you have a tool which can use the killfile to 
   process and save posts to a web server in a threaded manner.
<Subetai> Tym: Of course.
<Tym> OK..
<MrSubtle> Rawls completely neglected to provide any link whatsoever 
   between any moral theory and his thoery of justice (except by implication).
<<Action>> DanH turns red.
<Tym> we can conclude then that
<Subetai> Let Tym get to Rawls please.
<Tym> Justice, or what you deserve, fundamentally depends on the fact that 
   people have free will...
<Subetai> He's prepared this in advance. He'll lead to it.
<MrSubtle> OK
<Tym> ...it makes no sense whatever _outside_ of the context of free will.
<Tym> Everyone agree?
<Subetai> yep
<MrSubtle> Certainly.
<Tym> OK, next question..
<Tym> What is Rawls' theory of justice?
<Tym> succinctly pleez :)
<Clay> Tym, yes
<Subetai> That "justice" is the common denominator of what you can get 
   people to agree to as "fair".
<Subetai> From behind the "veil of ignorance".
<Tym> Subetai: it's not nec. consensus.
<MrSubtle> ...without any considerations of self-interest.
<TomR> Hola
<Subetai> Tym: Not consensus, but statistics.
<Tym> MrSubtle: no the essence tho.
<MrSubtle> He again and again calls it "Justice as Fairness".
<Tym> MR: what is fairness for Rawls tho?
<MrSubtle> SPecifically, he says that the result of the meeting behind the 
   veil would be that the most "just" society would be the one in which the 
   position of the worst off is the best...regardless of everyone else's 
   welfare.
<Subetai> He said that if people have to choose a station in life without 
   knowing in advance for what that station would be, they'd choose a society 
   where no one's very much better off than anyone else. He allows for some 
   inequalities, because without them he says there would be no incentive.
<Tym> Subtle, Subetai: good :)
<Tym> The essence then...
<Subetai> Tym: fairness to him is what most people are comfortable with, in 
   his analysis/opinion.
<DanH> Sub: All of which of course presumes predestination--however you're 
   born, your course in life from then on is set, and you have nothing to say 
   about it.
<Subetai> -for
<Tym> "People didn't *choose* the circumstances they were born into...
<Tym> ..so they can't be said to "deserve" them".
<Subetai> ok
<MrSubtle> Subetai: I don't think so.  Rawls would say that what people 
   want is always tainted by self-knowledge.  That's why he uses the veil...to 
   remove "prejudice".
<BetsyS> Does Rawls assume that equality of _results_ and outcomes is the 
   most "just" and "fair"?
<Subetai> MrSubtle: Okay. I said that given the veil, that's what 
   "fairness" would mean to them.
<Tym> Betsy: quite the contrary.
<Subetai> Betsy: yes
<Subetai> Tym: That's what his society is all about. Equality of results.
<MrSubtle> Betsy: Nope.  In fact, Rawls is seen as the primary exponent of 
   capitalism (!) because he doesn't rule out the existence of some inequality 
   as long as the inequality benefits the worst off.
<Tym> Betsy: Rawls as I understand him would say that unequal circumstances 
   make "deserts" meaningless.
<Tym> ..ie we can't evaluate deserts unless there's an "equal playing 
   field".
<Subetai> The "some inequality" he talks about is a minor thing, because he 
   understands that people don't work anymore if they fail to get some 
   rewards. But that "some inequality" exists within a larger goal of equality 
   of results.
<Tym> The "silver spoon" analogy is apt here.
<DanH> Tym: Ugh.  So character isn't chosen either, on his view.  Again, 
   whatever happens to you after you're born is out of your control.
<Tym> Dan: he just wants a "level playing field".
<Tym> Here's the analogy..
<DanH> Tym: You might as well want the moon to be made of green cheese.
<MrSubtle> Subetai: I agree that his "inequality" is rather minor, but as 
   modern philosophers in this field go, he is considered (by them, not us) as 
   a champion of capitalism and an opponent of what has come to be known as 
   egalitarianism.
<BetsyS> Tym:  Is he saying we are unequal by nature but ought to be equal 
   in results else it is "unfair"?
<Subetai> MrSubtle: Okay, I understand that.
<Tym> "Is it fair that someone who was born wealthy and is absolutely idle 
   have their rivhes while someone who was born with nothing and works hard 
   gets but a pittance?"
<Tym> =riches
<DanH> People--and their circumstances--and their outcomes--will always be 
   unequal.  Attempts to equalize them will only result in an economy of pull 
   rather than an economy of production.  Since pull produces nothing, any 
   scheme designed to implement his 
   plan...
<Tym> Betsy: he's simply saying that we didn't choose our life's 
   circumstances and that's not fair.
<DanH> ...will by its nature fail, since pull destroys production.
<BetsyS> The poor person gets satisfaction and the lazy rich guy feels like 
   his lide is a waste -- that's fair.
<Subetai> So his definition of "unfair" targets the metaphysical, not the 
   man-made.
<BetsyS> lide=life
<Tym> We must move on.
<DanH> Fairness is a concept that can only apply to the decisions made by a 
   consciousness.  They cannot apply to the metaphysical.  There is no 
   metaphysical "goodness" or "badness".  The universe is indifferent.
<DanH> (because it has nothing to be different with!) :)
<Tym> How does Rawls commit the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept?  How does he 
   invert the conceptual hierarchy?		
<Subetai> If "fairness" is defined metaphysically, then justice is no 
   longer the judging of men, but of facts of nature.
<BetsyS> Tym:  I'm still trying to find out what Rawls _standard_ of 
   fairness _is_.
<Tym> Remember here how we validated justice to begin with.
<Tym> Betsy: Rawl's standard is that everybody "leaves the starting gate at 
   the same time".
<MrSubtle> Betsy: It is what an unbiased collective would think given a 
   certain set of circumstances that would filter out all their personal 
   biases.
<DanH> Tym: he is stealing Free Will from men and applying it to 
   metaphysical facts, while simultaneously denying it to men.
<Clay> Tym, do you mean metaphysical equality is the standard?
<Tym> Clay: in principle, tho as Brian has pointed out...
<Tym> ...he does allow for slight inequalities as a matter of practicality.
<Tym> Clay: but yr dead on.
<DanH> Tym: So he asserts a "principle" only to negate it.  Lovely.
<Clay> Tym, dead is the right word
<DanH> He is therefore admitting that his standard of fairness _is 
   impossible to men_.  Only dead men are all equal.
<Tym> Clay: the actual way that Rawls assess that is irrelevant here.
<Subetai> Tym: That "practicality" is in spite of what he sees as the ideal 
   - it's a recognition of the "base nature of men", i.e., the fact that they 
   are motivated by profit. That's not what his concept of justice or fairness 
   is based on.
<Tym> Subetai: I don't think "baseness" is his concern here.
<Subetai> His concept is based on "equality of results", as much so as man 
   will allow.
<BetsyS> Your descriptions of Rawls view is heavy on abstraction and 
   metaphor and light on concrete details.  I can't reduce it to anything 
   meaningful.
<Subetai> Tym: It's a recognition of something that goes against the ideal 
   he is striving for.
<DanH> "I could have this wonderful, equal society if it weren't for all 
   the people getting in the way!" :)
<Tym> Betsy: well, the welfare state and affirmative action are the 
   embodiments of his proramme.
<MrSubtle> Betsy: That's how Rawls writes it...you have to dig a lot to get 
   to any kind of principles.
<Tym> =programme
<DanH> MrSubtle: This is a standard method of evaders; make your thesis 
   impenetrable enough so that the contradictions don't jump out at the 
   reader, and maybe you can get him to swallow it.
<Subetai> Betsy: Here's what he says: people need to think they are being 
   treated fairly. The only way they can, is if they have to imagine a society 
   without knowing whether they'd be one of the better off people in that 
   society or not. That way, they'd dream up 
   a society with low contrasts between the rich and the poor.
<Tym> Dan: actually the problem is the inversion of hierarchy I mentioned.
<MrSubtle> Dan: Exactly, although Rawls is not really opaque (like Kant who 
   is the master of opacity), he's jsut very slippery.
<Tym> Betsy: it's like Rawls is positing some sort of *pre-existent* 
   gathering..
<Subetai> Throw in the idea that it can't be perfectly flat, because there 
   would be no incentive. So there should be small inequalities (just enough 
   to maintain some incentive to work), but view them as "necessary" in order 
   for society to function.
<MrSubtle> Tym: Yeah...I think at times he refers to it as a "thought 
   experiment".
<Tym> MrSubtle: right.  This is the critical spot where Rawls is wrong.
<DanH> Tym: Rawls' argument requires people to decide what kind of lots men 
   will get after they're born, while denying them the ability to make such 
   decisions after they're born.
<Tym> DanH: dead on :)
<Subetai> The perception of fairness = the knowledge that you are not much 
   worse off than the best around you. Fairness is irrelevant. The perception 
   of fairness is what counts.
<Tym> For Rawls, it's a matter of "choosing" BEFORE you are born.
<Subetai> Tym: okay
<DanH> What's more, he's telling more about himself than about "people"; he 
   is revealing his envy of the productive, his hatred of the good for being 
   good.
<Tym> i.e. a _non-existent_ kind of choosing.
<BetsyS> It seems as if Rawl's ideal is absolute equality and his standard 
   is "that which is good for society".  Same old same old.
<MrSubtle> The truth is that he's really just taking his own theories 
   (presumably based on all sorts of terrible prejudices and such) and putting 
   them in the mouths of these supposedly perfect judges.
<Tym> Betsy: for him it's a matter of "choosing" yr life's circumstances.
<MrSubtle> That's one of the most blatant contradictions in his basic 
   method.
<Subetai> Yeah. His idea of a good society goes for vague things such as 
   "stability", "lack of class warfare", etc.
<Tym> MrSubtle: it's worse than that...
<MrSubtle> If it is impossible for people with self-knowledge to arrive at 
   sound theories of justice then how does he think he is competent to do it?
<Tym> He puts volition BEFORE existence.
<Tym> Does everyone see that?
<Tym> ..outsideof this life, in some pre-existent realm.
<Subetai> Right. That it's unfair that an embryo can't choose the family 
   it's born to.
<MrSubtle> Of course.
<MrSubtle> Tym: I can think of a thousand objections to his ideas, but even 
   on his own terms we ought to throw them out.
<DanH> He's giving nothing itself the ability to choose. :)
<Tym> MrSubtle: right.  I wanted to formally identify his essential flaw as 
   concept-stealing ie volition preceding existence.
<<Action>> Tym sums up...
<BetsyS> Does Rawls have a "reality ain't fair" point of view?
<Tym> The only way you can assess a person's worthness for anything has to 
   be based on what they _choose_ to do with *what they have*
<Tym> Betsy: exactly!
<Tym> =worthiness
<DanH> Tym: You might as well want the moon to be made of green cheese.
<Subetai> So his definition of "unfair" targets the metaphysical, not the 
   man-made.
<DanH> Fairness is a concept that can only apply to the decisions made by a 
   consciousness.  They cannot apply to the metaphysical.  There is no 
   metaphysical "goodness" or "badness".  The universe is indifferent.
<Tym> Any questions on this point before we move on?
<Tym> It's a crucial point.
<Tym> OK, couple more questions and we're through.
<Tym> How is egalitarianism a denial of the metaphysically given?
<Tym> Speak, someone :)
<Tym> Hint: can we equally distribute intelligence, good looks, etc.?
<DanH> Tym: Fairness is a concept of consciousness tied to decisions and 
   free will.  As such it comes much later than metaphysics, which is where 
   reality is.
<Subetai> Because the only valid place for "equality" is "equality under 
   the law" - strictly in the political realm. Any use of the word in an 
   economic sense denies that man must choose to be what he is, work for what 
   he has.
<BetsyS> Tym:  It seems like it is the _rejection_ of the metaphysically 
   given.
<Tym> Betsy: yup.
<Tym> Can we "fairly" distribute good eyesight?
<DanH> Ethics--which is based on epistemology--and in turn on 
   metaphysics--cannot be used to evaluate metaphysics (that is, you can't say 
   the Universe is good or bad, because the Universe just _is_; it doesn't 
   choose).
<Tym> Dan: look at the hints I've been throwing out :)
<Clay> Tym, people don't share the same body, I think that's what you are 
   getting at
<Clay> they have their own bodies, they are all different, and that's a 
   fact
<Tym> Clay: how would Rawls solve that if he were to be totally consistent?
<Subetai> He couldn't.
<Clay> Punish those w/ superior minds and bodies by tying them to the "less 
   fortunate"
<DanH> I'm pointing out that Rawls attempts to raise the metaphysical to 
   the level of ethics, hence making it somehow man-made.
<Tym> Clay: dead on :)
<BetsyS> It seems as if Rawls is saying that someone's gain is somebody 
   else's loss and that those who have the most good things are unfairly 
   taking too much from society's collective pot.
<DanH> (i.e. not given, but subject to decision)
<Tym> Betsy: effectively, yes.
<Subetai> You can't distribute "good eyesight". Blinding people is not 
   distributing "good eyesight".
<Tym> Subetai: but that's what would _have_ to obtain if we were to be as 
   fair as possible, right?
<Subetai> So the answer is, it can't be sone.
<Subetai> sone = done
<Tym> ...we'd have to cut out some people's eyes.
<Clay> Tym, that's why he allows for the minor inequalities
<Tym> Clay: that's a smokescreen.
<Clay> Tym, exactly
<BetsyS> Some "minor" inequality!
<Tym> ...if he were to be scrupulously "fair", that's what would happen.
<Tym> now...
<Tym> What are the most dramatic examples of egalitarianism in practise?
<Subetai> Affirmative Action.
<Tym> (following on this last point)
<DanH> The Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
<LurchGS> black history
<Tym> Subetai: good.  But the US is hardly the most "egalitarian" nation in 
   the world.
<BillC> "Multiculturalism:"
<<Action>> Tym wants some all-time clinkers in this regard.
<BetsyS> Outcome-based education.
<BetsyS> Tym: Communism.
<DanH> Tym: Oh.  If you want to leave the U.S.--PROC, USSR.
<LurchGS> the various organized religions
<Tym> Betsy, Dan: right.
<Clay> Tym, England's medical system
<DanH> Sweden.
<Tym> How about the Cultural Revolution?
<Wright> African tribe
<<Action>> Tym wants SCALE :)
<Tym> Cambodia, anyone?
<Clay> Tym, Pol Pot destroying that city by forcing it's citizens into the 
   countryside
<Wright> Nazis
<Tym> Clay: why did he do it?
<BetsyS> Tym:  For sure.  Or a graveyard.
<DanH> Tym: Right.  Killing everyone who wore glasses.
<Clay> Tym, I don't know alot about it...
<BillC> (Pol Pot seemed not to need a reason for anything)
<DanH> And everyone who'd had an education (except in correct political 
   ideology, of course).
<Tym> What happened during the Cultural Revolution and why?
<Clay> Rand mentioned it, so I looked it up one evening
<Subetai> They killed anyone with wealth, an education, etc.
<DanH> Aushwitz.  Bergen-Belsen.  The gulags.  The kulaks.  Shall I go on?
<Wright> night all
<Tym> Subetai: right on.
<Clay> What is the cultural revolution?
<DanH> In Aushwitz, everyone was equal, alive or dead.
<Tym> Clay: 1966-1976 in China...
<Subetai> Clay: Mao's takeover of China.
<Clay> Sube, oh
<Tym> ...tens of millions of people were exiled to "re-education" camps and 
   the countryside
<Tym> ...imprisoned, tortured, executed.
<DanH> That is the ideal towards which those like Rawls aim.
<Tym> ...all in the name of "equality".
<Tym> ...all the best and the brightest.
<Tym> Dan: yup
<Subetai> How widespread is Rawls' philosophy among academic circles?
<Tym> OK. I'm done.  Go play in traffic! ;)
<Subetai> Thanks, Tym :)
<Clay> Subetai, I've heard aspects of it mentioned in every polisci and 
   history class I've had
<Tym> Subetai: very.  The NYT trots him out in editorials all the time to 
   protect entitlements.
<BillC> A purge of the best.
<Clay> I don't remember him being mentioned specifically, though
<DanH> Okay, playing in traffic:
<Tym> ..."if we're to have a fair society with equal opportunity for all.." 
   :-/
<DanH> Yet another scene from Atlas Shrugged comes true in reality.
<DanH> Rearden--You seem to be pleased about it.    Ferris--Don't I have 
   reason to be?    Rearden--But, after all, I did break one of your laws.    
   Ferris--Well, what do you think they're for?
<DanH> Does this remind anyone of a certain situation now going on?
<Clay> Dan, a whole bunch of them
<Clay> Microsoft is getting dragged into court repeatedly for anti-trust 
   violations
<DanH> In fact, I saw a quote from a politician who said something very 
   like what Ferris said there.  He said, "We need laws to have Constitutional 
   tests once in a while."
<DanH> (i.e. in order to have someone break 'em so we can test the 
   Constitution on 'em)
<DanH> Clay: I was thinking of the CDA.
<Tym> Clay: I think MS's persecution is a perfect example of "a level 
   playing field" :-/
<DanH> Tym: I mentioned it earlier when I spoke of the Sherman Anti-Trust 
   Act.
<Jim_N> Tym: Of course, the anti-trust laws also hate TOO much equality, 
   i.e. "price-fixing" -- a stupid concept.
<Tym> Gotta go now.  Bye all :)
   IRC log ended Fri Feb 16 23:15