/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17371303]

Rawls saying that natural differences in humans arising from genetics is unfair seems crazy as fuck to me. How are you even supposed to legislate on such a thing?

[Anonymous No.17371312]

so what if it's unfair

[Anonymous No.17371346]

>>17371312
That's what I thought. Natural differences are inevitable. It seems to be his chief criticism with regular liberalism in that, no matter how many social programs it has, liberalism never addresses inherent differences in humans.

His book (A Theory of Justice) is quite interesting but I don't think things need to be equalised to such an extreme degree.

[Anonymous No.17371353]

>>17371303
Sowell unironically has a great response to Rawls and all Rawlsian-style thinking.

He calls this type of thinking in the OP pursuing "transcendental justice" and he claims it's the fundamental flaw in leftist beliefs. You cannot correct for natural inequality because if you did it for some, it would have to be done for all for it to be just and that is physically impossible. You cannot make people taller. You cannot make someone's dick bigger. Et cetera.

Pursuing transcendental justice is a fool's errand and smacks of a kind of biblical hubris.

[Anonymous No.17371357]

Some Harrison Bergeron shit

[Anonymous No.17371376]

>>17371357
He tries to avoid that with the difference principle and says that inequality is okay to a degree but it kind of came off like trickle-down economics.

I'm only about 1/3 through the book to be fair. Maybe he makes a stronger case later.

[Anonymous No.17371400]

>>17371353
Sowell only exists because of identity politics which right wingers say they hate. He literally on exists so people can say
>my black friend agrees
Fuck him and fuck the people who shill him.

[Anonymous No.17371408]

>>17371376
I’ve been listening to a Law of Peoples which was his subsequent work and trust me he doesn’t resolve these issues he kinda has this madding tactic of building fantastic towers on shaky foundations. And I fancy myself a very “left” leaning libertarian.

[Anonymous No.17371410]

>>17371303
If you are reading Rawls, can’t you tell us what the practical implication of that stance is?

The idea that advantage bestowed by genetic differences is unfair is obvious from the liberal point of view. The question is what practical conclusion you draw from this, and whether or not it constitutes a greater unfairness.

Rawls obviously isn’t going to conclude something like ‘therefore we should handicap people such that we are all equally impaired as the least advantages human’, because that does nothing to improve the position of that lowest person.

[Anonymous No.17371415]

>>17371400
Good Argument!!

[Anonymous No.17371421]

>>17371400
See his reddit spacing? He's not from here. He's a shill.

[Anonymous No.17371427]

>>17371421
>reddit spacing

Only newfags think this.

[Anonymous No.17371456]

>>17371410
>can’t you tell us what the practical implication of that stance is?
That some people are going to do better than others due to the luck of their birth. That is unfair in an abstract sense but I don't see how you can possible quantify inherent ability and how you'd legislate to fix it.

I'm in favour of equality of opportunity and creating the environment in which people can take advantage of the opportunities. Typically that will translate into your standard western welfare package but in terms of what I would change, I would get schools to teach things like the idea of civic duty and hold classes on ethics. Not so much to say "this is what you should do" but to try and highlight the responsibilities we have to each other and the ultimate fact that, if they want to have a comfortable life, they'll have to achieve it themselves no matter how much help is given.

I believe in reciprocity. If you take from society then you should try and give back, whether that's through earning a living for yourself or something else. I don't think it's a good idea for the government to go "Timmy, we think you're stupid as fuck so you're going to get XYZ because otherwise, you're going to get btfo'd by Sean over there in your exams".

>>17371421
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.17371475]

>>17371400
You are the one making a point of his color.

[Anonymous No.17371494]

>>17371303
>Rawls saying that natural differences in humans arising from genetics is unfair
Did he actually say that? So I know to skip him if so.

[Anonymous No.17371495]

>>17371456
To add to this, I think civic duty/ethics etc should be taught because then if someone does fail when the system has institutions in place for them to flourish, it's much easier to say "this is your own fault, we tried to warn you".

[Anonymous No.17371512]

>>17371494
Never mind I went through the thread and
>>17371456
>>17371495
you sound like an idiot OP so your interpretations are unreliable.

[Anonymous No.17371565]

>>17371494

https://philosophyintrocourse.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/rawls-theory-of-justice.pdf

>Once we decide to look for a conception of justice that prevents the use of the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstance as counters in a quest for political and economic advantage, we are led to these principles.

When criticising liberalism

>The existing distribution of income and wealth, say, is the cumulative effect of prior distributions of natural assets—that is, natural talents and abilities—as these have been developed or left unrealized, and their use favored or disfavored over time by social circumstances and such chance contingencies as accident and good fortune. Intuitively, the most obvious injustice of the system of natural liberty is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by these factors so arbitrary from a moral point of view.

>While the liberal conception seems clearly preferable to the system of natural liberty, intuitively it still appears defective. For one thing, even if it works to perfection in eliminating the influence of social contingencies, it still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents. Within the limits allowed by the background arrangements, distributive shares are decided by the outcome of the natural lottery; and this outcome is arbitrary from a moral perspective. There is no more reason to permit the distribution of income and wealth to be settled by the distribution of natural assets than by historical and social fortune.

>>17371512
Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.17371582]

>>17371494
not sure if he specifically deemed them "unfair", but he certainly highlighted them as a factor which influences whether a person may attain certain positions in life. It is no secret that intelligent, attractive, conscientious and/or generally talented people have a leg up over their peers. One of the issues is that most "self-made" people are very talented, and without said talents, which they were endowed with through sheer genetic luck, maybe they would not have been able to achieve whatever they did manage to achieve
this is an unsolvable gap, and iirc (though I might be mistaken) Rawls's proposition was simply that those who were more advantaged in life (whether through inheritance, social status, or talent) should "give back" more to society comparatively to those who have not been as lucky

[Anonymous No.17371593]

>>17371565
What a cancerous writer. No wonder he's so popular if he sucks neoliberalism cock. He'll be forgotten in a few decades.

[Anonymous No.17371613]

>>17371582
>unsolvable
Yes, you can't solve a problem that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.17371687]

>>17371565
>>17371582
What about people whose talents are never recognised? Or "priviliged" people who end up being a target precisely because of their luck, and end up injured or worse?

[Anonymous No.17371710]

>>17371687
>Or "priviliged" people who end up being a target precisely because of their luck, and end up injured or worse?
That doesn't sound very lucky anon.

[Anonymous No.17371744]

>>17371710
thats what im saying
if your "lucky" life, whether you are the son of some wealthy ceo or just incredibly gifted leads to your life becoming significantly worse had it not been for these things, then is it really luck?
just the assumption that certain privileges automatically place you at the top of a given society, and/or that they are to be seen as absolute advantages, is a bit reductive

[Anonymous No.17371753]

>>17371744
>just the assumption that certain privileges automatically place you at the top of a given society, and/or that they are to be seen as absolute advantages, is a bit reductive
I'm failing to see your point. I was saying that we shouldn't legislate for things like natural ability. You're saying natural ability isn't necessarily a positive. Okay. What is your point then?

[Anonymous No.17371771]

>>17371753
>Rawls's proposition was simply that those who were more advantaged in life (whether through inheritance, social status, or talent) should "give back" more to society comparatively to those who have not been as lucky
im assuming this isnt you? I was mostly referring to this

[Anonymous No.17371800]

>>17371771
Nah, that wasn't me. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.17371828]

>>17371303
>Rawls saying that natural differences in humans arising from genetics is unfair seems crazy as fuck to me.

You are severely misrepresenting the ingeniousness of Rawls' argument against natural aristocracy/system of natural liberty. He is not claiming is that inequalities that arise due to natural variability are irrelevant or unjust and that people are not entitled to their benefits that they receive through exercise of their natural talents. There is nothing unfair when a talented sportsman receives an Olympic medal in virtue of nothing but his pure natural supremacy, for example. What he is arguing is that natural difference between individuals is ARBITRARY FROM A MORAL AND POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW. Say, naturally gifted athletes or intelligent chess players do not get to claim that they deserve the kind of system of background conditions that privileges them and gives them more chances and opportunities in life simply because they are gifted - they may be physical and intellectual superiors, but they are morally equal as citizens in a democratic state.

If you're still confused, I recommend you to check out the first half of "Realizing Rawls" by Thomas Pogge, he really digs into this stuff in an easy to understand language.

t. wrote my master's thesis on Rawls

[Anonymous No.17371847]

>>17371828
>t. wrote my master's thesis on Rawls
No one cares loser

[Anonymous No.17371854]

>>17371828
Have you met my friend, Wilt Chamberlain?

>You are severely misrepresenting the ingeniousness of Rawls' argument against natural aristocracy/system of natural liberty.
As I quoted in >>17371565, that particular criticism in my OP was aimed at liberalism.

[Anonymous No.17371863]

>>17371847
OP could possibly care, fellow Letzter Mensch.

[Anonymous No.17371877]

>>17371828
His criticism was aimed at liberalism as I quoted here >>17371565

He said even with institutions equalising people, it's still unjust to have natural differences because the winners don't deserve it so there's no reason they can't have their shit redistributed because they never earned the surplus to begin with

[Anonymous No.17371890]

>If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.

[Anonymous No.17371902]

>>17371828
What about the difference principle? What's your take on that anon

[Anonymous No.17371908]

>>17371890
I believe we need a novel religious institution that should oversee the genetic engineering of people. We cant let that to meek liberals or insectoids.

[Anonymous No.17371933]

>>17371400
Literally no one brought up his race until you showed up. Think before you speak

[Anonymous No.17371973]

>>17371908
moron. religion served the purpose of justifying the material conditions of its time. the material conditions changed and religion lost its influence. now the new ideology is liberalism. why? because it is aligned with the current necessities of the system. that people are more and more weary of liberalism simply means that liberalism is becoming obsolete.

every single ideology is ulterior justification of material change. not a single ideology ever had any 'impact' on society.

thinking your epic ideology/religion/cult will bring utopia is juvenile delusions.

[Anonymous No.17371983]

>>17371973
>religion served the purpose of justifying material conditions
No

[Anonymous No.17371985]

>>17371973
>commie still clinging to his outdated 19th century sociology
many such cases!

[Anonymous No.17371991]

>>17371582
>Should give back
If you punish people for being talented (call it whatever fancy word you want, that's how the talented individual is going to view it), they're going to somewhere where they are not punished for being talented

[Anonymous No.17372022]

>>17371854
>Have you met my friend, Wilt Chamberlain?
That is precisely the issue in Nozick's attempt to criticize Rawls' distributive justice - he is essentially arguing against a straw man. The gist of Nozick's argument is that any end-state theory of economic justice requires constant intervention into free-market mechanisms in order to maintain a specific just state of economy or to treat talents of specific athletes as a public commodity. Yet, that is not the position that is put forward in the Theory of Justice. Briefly put, what Rawls seeks is not re-distribution of already existing income but simply a scheme of receiving income in which the position of the least well-off is maximized - say, persons like Wilt Chamberlain keep their increased share of income, but are expected to pay tax to maintain economic aid programmes and so forth. This scheme of background conditions might be perceived as unfair and burdens by talented athletes because it does not reflect their natural superiority, but they do not claim to be superior CITIZENS with a stronger voice to be heard because they are stronger physically or intellectually - a fair system of background conditions is the one which seeks to account for both social and natural inequalities and maximize the standing of the least well-off as free and equal moral citizens. If a proposal is made to create a system of background conditions which systemically privileges the most naturally gifted ones, in a position of equal bargaining power the less gifted will no doubt find these institutional arrangements to be unacceptable and veto them.

Again dig into "Realizing Rawls" by Thomas Pogge, specifically pages 15 to 63 where he defends Rawls against Nozick's critique, the extend to which Nozick has misread Rawls is quite staggering.

>As I quoted in >>17371565, that particular criticism in my OP was aimed at liberalism.

By "liberalism" Rawls here means a "system of natural liberty" which rectified social inequalities but does not rectify natural ones.

[Anonymous No.17372040]

>>17371312
One of the justifications for liberalism is the idea people can become whatever they want and anyone who's worse off could be better off if they just work harder within the context of a liberal society, etc. If that's not realistic liberalism doesn't really offer much and why should people work harder or agree to enforce rights which benefit you more than me?

>>17371312
If something's unfair why should I play along?

>>17371353
Does Sowell think mental retards should be dumped in the streets to die? No. Such a society wouldn't be "just" obviously to christcucks. They believe in paternalism and people doing things based on being spooked. Conservative libtards like Sowell believe people should voluntarily out of their individual generosity give stuff away to fix actual social problems but I'm not going to do that given the option lol

[Anonymous No.17372048]

>>17371983
>>17371985
so why did religion fall out of fashion? a rational explanation? This isn't communism but basic dialectics, from which Kaczynski delineates his works. I really can't see how Kaczynski is a commnist in any way

[Anonymous No.17372065]

>>17372040
>If something's unfair why should I play along?

Criminals often evade punishment. Are you out committing crime to spite the system's lack of reprimand? Doubtful.

To pretend a completely "fair" existence can be achieved is utopic daydreaming; never mind the tautology that comes with it.

[Anonymous No.17372087]

>>17372048
>Rational explanations for historical events
Ngmi
Atheism is popular in times of peace, prosperity and immense intellectual arrogance
That's about all that can be said

[Anonymous No.17372089]

>>17372022
>By "liberalism" Rawls here means a "system of natural liberty" which rectified social inequalities but does not rectify natural ones.
They're separate entries in his table (liberalism and natural liberty) and he says liberalism tries unsuccessfully to fix natural liberty.

http://consiglio.regione.campania.it/cms/CM_PORTALE_CRC/servlet/Docs?dir=docs_biblio&file=BiblioContenuto_3641.pdf

>In the system of natural liberty the initial distribution is regulated by the arrangements implicit in the conception of careers open to talents (as earlier defined).

>The liberal interpretation, as I shall refer to it, tries to correct for this by adding to the requirement of careers open to talents the further condition of the principle of fair equality of opportunity

>The liberal interpretation of the two principles seeks, then, to mitigate the influence of social contingencies and natural fortune on distributive shares. To accomplish this end it is necessary to impose further basic structural conditions on the social system. Free market arrangements must be set within a framework of political and legal institutions which regulates the overall trends of economic events and preserves the social conditions necessary for fair equality of opportunity

and then this quote again

>While the liberal conception seems clearly preferable to the system of natural liberty, intuitively it still appears defective. For one thing, even if it works to perfection in eliminating the influence of social contingencies, it still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents. Within the limits allowed by the background arrangements, distributive shares are decided by the outcome of the natural lottery; and this outcome is arbitrary from a moral perspective. There is no more reason to permit the distribution of income and wealth to be settled by the distribution of natural assets than by historical and social fortune.

Again, he says liberalism doesn't go far enough because it doesn't fix the issue of natural talent even with a perfectly working welfare system because the outcomes will be unjust.

[Anonymous No.17372096]

>>17372089
>>17372022
Forgot to post the table.

[Anonymous No.17372104]

>>17372087
based

[Anonymous No.17372107]

>>17372087
so if the problem is atheism, then every religion is valid right?

[Anonymous No.17372108]

>>17372048
Because we’re going through social decay and decadence. Religion unifies and builds and atheism splinters and falls.

[Anonymous No.17372112]

>>17371991
You can measure how much tax income you lose from when people leave the country and find an optimal tax. The optimum probably isn't 0.

Talented billionaires won't instantly leave the country if you tax them $1 to feed starving orphans.

[Anonymous No.17372119]

>>17371902
Well, the difference principle what Rawls advocates as a principle which guides design of background conditions which both rectifies natural AND social inequality. All citizens no matter their social background (i.e. race, gender, caste, historical background) are put on an equal legal footing as citizens and then are free to exercise their natural qualities like talents, products of genetics, intellect and even brute good luck as they will, so long as the background conditions which reward individuals with income for their exercise of natural qualities do not decrease the standing of the least well-off. Pretty convincing, if you ask me.

>He said even with institutions equalising people, it's still unjust to have natural differences because the winners don't deserve it so there's no reason they can't have their shit redistributed because they never earned the surplus to begin with

Nope, what he says here is that persons are equal citizens from a moral point of view, whatever physical characteristics they might have, superior or inferior. People do not deserve more rights or special legal accommodations simply because they have won the natural lottery. Nobody will run after your Olympic medals, for example.

[Anonymous No.17372127]

>>17372048
Ironically, it's only the religions that tried to go with the flow that fell into decay (mostly Protestantism and Catholicism).
But even know, in times of great material wealth, people cannot help but feel like there must be something more than just materialism, which contradicts Marx' take on Feuerbach's atheism, that any religious belief will simply wither away as material circumstances advance.

[Anonymous No.17372139]

>>17372112
Ireland says hi lol

[Anonymous No.17372144]

>>17372119
>Nope, what he says here is that persons are equal citizens from a moral point of view, whatever physical characteristics they might have, superior or inferior.
Yes, that's his first principle which most people would agree on.

It's the second principle, that of goods, which I take issue with.

You keep talking about the first principle when that isn't what's being discussed. I would think that everyone acknowledges that someone born with better genetics isn't morally better than someone worse off. That's not the discussion here. What we're discussing is the redistribution that Rawls advocates for because your genertic benefits are unearned which I have quoted numerous times here.

>Within the limits allowed by the background arrangements, distributive shares are decided by the outcome of the natural lottery; and this outcome is arbitrary from a moral perspective. There is no more reason to permit the distribution of income and wealth to be settled by the distribution of natural assets than by historical and social fortune.

What else can this be but a call for redistribution from those with lucky genetics to those without? And, as I've asked before, how does one even quantify this?

[Anonymous No.17372154]

>>17372089
>>17372096
I confused system of natural liberty with liberal equality, my bad. Briefly put, what he is saying is that a system which, say, simply provides equality of opportunity to all citizens but does not provide progressive taxation (liberal equality) does not rectify natural inequality - physically and intellectually talented or lucky people are systemically privileged and thus are treated as superior citizens.

[Anonymous No.17372176]

>>17372127
>But even know, in times of great material wealth, people cannot help but feel like there must be something more than just materialism
yes it's called alienation.

[Anonymous No.17372182]

>>17372176
yes, alienation from God, which Marx vehemently denies is even possible.

[Anonymous No.17372190]

>>17372144
>What else can this be but a call for redistribution from those with lucky genetics to those without?

Rawls doesn't advocate for redistribution of already earned income by talented individuals. What he calls for is a system in which talented individuals are permitted to earn more money, insofar as it is to the maximal benefit of the least well-off. So, for example, a tax system akin to S5 on the screenshot here is to be preferred - whatever the naturally gifted or lucky manage to earn, the standing of the least well-off is maximized.

[Anonymous No.17372191]

>>17372182
>marx marx marx marx
did I mention marx once? no, fucking kek

[Anonymous No.17372199]

>>17372191
Oh right, well in that case we can just settle on how this is alienation from God, and that material causes are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.17372201]

>>17372112
Billionaires aren't paying taxes anyways because they have loopholes
If they do, it's a voluntary move of philanthropy
Or some sort of party-lobby power struggle
Simple proof: real tax revenues peaked with REAGAN, the tax cut guy, in the US, otherwise revenue has mostly ignored changes in tax rate
Now if they can't use loopholes, then they go to Cyprus, Malta or the virgin islands or whatever

[Anonymous No.17372239]

>>17372182
>>17372199
No, the entire point of Incarnation is to prove to jews that we're not alienated from God (don't know why you say atheism is alienation from god when that's what monotheism posits by the way) since God is on earth through Christ. But then you'd have to understand Christ and not the ideological recupération of his teachings by the church - which, again, only serve the purpose of justifying material conditions, as can be easily proven through the evolution of the church through the years.

Once more ideologues BTFOd. We could be living in divine communion but no, you domesticated assets insist on eternally reconducting alienation.

[Anonymous No.17372272]

>>17372239
Terrible theology. Ancient Jews believed in a wrathful God that was by no means alienated from people. No more alien than a storm or the shining sun. Where did you get this drivel from?

[Anonymous No.17372361]

>>17372190
>Rawls doesn't advocate for redistribution of already earned income by talented individuals
Naturally, I wasn't saying he was calling for redistribution of existing funds. I was referring to taxation like you were. I don't see how this is any different from regular liberalism though. Progressive taxation had already existed for a long time before Rawls was writing.

I don't see what his distinction is here. Even with a flat tax structure, the wealthy are still going to pay more and, as I said, progressive taxes were already in place. Considering that he is taking aim squarely at natural ability, it seems to me that he's calling for more than just progressive taxation. It seems like he wants the government to identify people with natural ability and extract more taxation as long as it doesn't harm the lower classes, following the difference principle.

I might take a look at that book you posted btw, thanks for recommending it.

[Anonymous No.17372371]

>>17372190
isn't this just progressive taxation?

[Anonymous No.17372395]

>>17372190
>>17372361
I’m gonna jump in on this convo bros. Wouldn’t a lock tight inheritance tax + VAT take care of all this in a simple and efficient way? You get to keep all or most of what you make while you’re alive and when you spend it you get VATed and whatever you hodled til death gets assessed and taxed. For historical precedent look at the tax policy of Calvin Coolidge, who with a strong estate tax, was able to simultaneously raise effective tax rate and eliminate income tax on the middle class.

[Anonymous No.17372401]

Test

[Anonymous No.17372420]

>>17372065
Criminal law is possible, it's not utopian at all but neither is collective tard strength to kill normies.

[Anonymous No.17372421]

>>17372395
people will just donate everything to the church, or spin off a non-profit and make their kids executive director for a million dollar a year salary or something, it would have a ton of unintended consequences and achieve none of the intended goals, thankfully kids on 4chan aren't responsible for american tax policy

[Anonymous No.17372422]

>>17372040
>Does Sowell think mental retards should be dumped in the streets to die? No. Such a society wouldn't be "just" obviously to christcucks.
Duty of care != equality of outcome. This is a weird strawman you're knocking down.

Leftists are focused on equity, which is literally equality of outcome. Taking care of someone is not that. In no way are you treating your dog as an equal when you take care of it, but it is something that ought to be done because you care about your dog and it would be selfish not to.

[Anonymous No.17372450]

>>17372395
>and whatever you hodled til death gets assessed and taxed
fuck no

[Anonymous No.17372462]

>>17372421
Even with the current regime rich families tend to set up front companies to get around IHT

[Anonymous No.17372469]

>>17372421
>Donating everything to the church
1.) not necessarily a bad thing
2.) not likely to be done by many wealthy people
3.) all of this can be undone by eliminating the church tax exemption
>spin off a non profit and place their kid at the head of the board
1.) make nepotism a disqualification for non profit status
2.) limit the amount of money boards are allowed to extract from any non profit

>hurrr you’re a dumb kid on 4chan think of how slippery the slope could be and all the whataboutisms I can throw at you
1.) I gave you a viable historical example to analyze
2.) fuck off

[Anonymous No.17372477]

>>17372450
Lmao why do you care? you’re dead dummy.

[Anonymous No.17372584]

>>17371303
rawls is a dangerous jew

[Anonymous No.17372589]

>>17372477
are you being serious? inheritance, family...

[Anonymous No.17372606]

>>17372477
>bro who cares if the government takes all you have, you're dead dude lol
>just let the good government decide where your assets go, who cares about your family and your loved ones anyway lol
>inheritance is bad because it furthers social and economic inequality!
eat shit and die

[Anonymous No.17372644]

>>17372589
Yes, I’m being dead serious. Look I’m a family oriented person myself but if you think I’m just gonna unload a bunch of cash and assets on my decedents you’re dead fucking wrong. I’m going to spend lavishly on their education, I’m going to assist them in buying and founding their own businesses, I’m going to spend every dime on making them ideal citizens under my tutelage and guidance. There won’t be much to assess after I die. But that’s why I paired my tax plan with a strong VAT (also I didn’t explicitly say it but i include gift tax under inheritance tax) and I’m not talking about a 100% rate here either.

It seems a fair and simple way to assess taxes that eliminates loopholes while simultaneously encouraging positive aspects of society such as encouraging people to attain their own valuable skills instead of allowing them to live off their trust funds and dithering their inheritance away (which is what usually happens btw your lazy kids you leave it all to fuck it all up by being pieces of shit 8/10 times)

[Anonymous No.17372657]

>>17372606
Read
>>17372644
You’re not doing your family any favors by holding all your assets til you die. That would be better spent training your children and funding their dreams and professional aspirations. You’re attitude is that of a fat wyrm laying about his treasure room in a state of sloth and greed.

[Anonymous No.17372764]

>>17372371
It's an aspect of the kind of economic system which Rawls desires that I used for illustration, but obviously progressive taxation with welfare state is just a part of Rawls' programme and stopping here is not enough. What Rawls also desires to see is drastic reallocation of the means of production in economy, as a part of either market socialism or property-owning democracy. Say, institutions must be arranged in a way that, in addition to progressive tax and welfare state, the means of production of capital have widespread ownership and monopolies or large corporations are seen as undesirable and potentially harmful, with small-sized, medium-sized and collectively owned sized businesses being well-represented in the competitive market economy. Pretty much the entirety of his last work, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, is dedicated against claims that Rawls is a timid advocate of Nordic-style social democracy, while the implications of his arguments actually imply almost stepping a couple steps away short of market-based socialism the likes of which have not actually had a lot of real-world examples (Tito's Yugoslavia probably came close, but it went too far with centralized command of economy for sure).

>>17372361

Society organized around the lines of liberal equality principle - or what you're referring to as regular liberalism - may indeed have progressive taxation systems, but their main concern is not with rectifying natural inequalities but with being more economically efficient in some way. Say, for example, though schemes of progressive taxation, a liberal state could pay off foreign debt quicker and therefore achieve more economic efficiency, or welfare programmes could be established to eliminate unempolyment and encourage participation in economy. Difference principle, though, demands schemes of economic distribution to SPECIFICALLY rectify natural inequality and not just to increase efficiency, and that's a big difference. This gives a green light to more drastic welfare programmes and efforts to encourage diffusion of the means of production.

>It seems like he wants the government to identify people with natural ability and extract more taxation as long as it doesn't harm the lower classes, following the difference principle.

I'd imagine that under the veil of ignorance such schemes would be perceived as unfair and would be vetoed.

>I might take a look at that book you posted btw, thanks for recommending it.

No problem bud, glad my knowledge I amassed while writing thesis back in the day came to be useful. Ask any other questions about Rawls if you want while I'm still awake.

[Anonymous No.17372768]

>>17372644
>>17372657
both of you are assuming that
>whoever is "holding the assets" will stay alive up until the point the designated "inheritor" will have received "lavish funds and assets" on their education, wellbeing and whatnot. You're deliberately excluding cases in which people die prematurely due to accidents, medical conditions, and so forth
>that the potential testator is a moral person who will willingly invest his wealth on his family. By taking away everything he has upon his death with the purpose of " encouraging people to attain their own valuable skills instead of allowing them to live off their trust funds and dithering their inheritance away" you seem to be excluding family from this government distribution. Therefore, a malicious testator could make sure than his next of kin would be left with virtually nothing. Ironically, current legislation in most countries has measures which allow the immediate family of the testator to take part in the estate despite not being mentioned in the will. Your system would lead to blatantly unjust and immoral outcomes.
>that the government would somehow more capable of using said resources instead of wasting them, it's like you've never heard of mobs, lobbies and general corruption. At least 70% of these assets would be liquified and invested by some bureocrat in Dubai. At least inheritance law (though disputes can get very ugly) ensure that most of the estate will go to the people which have the highest right to it
you are both utterly delusional.

[Anonymous No.17372793]

>>17372644
>>17372657
>fat wyrm laying about his treasure room in a state of sloth and greed.
>which is why you should hand it all over to the government instead
jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.17372820]

>>17372768
Life insurance is a safety net to the problem of premature death and the rest of your post is essentially arguing against taxation in and of itself by saying government can’t be used to aggregate funds and efficiently produce social good with them.

[Anonymous No.17372827]

>>17372768
>>17372793
AnCaps get out the adults are talking

[Anonymous No.17372858]

>>17372820
>the rest of your post is essentially arguing against taxation in and of itself
nope, it's against misappropriation of family estates by the government to follow some warped ideological vision
you're arguing a strawman

[Anonymous No.17372868]

>>17372657
>That would be better spent training your children and funding their dreams and professional aspirations.
oh please, when rich ppl send their kids to expensive schools you cry about that too

[Anonymous No.17372872]

>>17372827
>supporting inheritance law means you're an ancap

[Anonymous No.17372892]

>>17372820
>people should have a right to their families' assets
>you're against taxation
nigga

[Anonymous No.17372902]

>>17371303
holy shit how can you be this dumb?

[Anonymous No.17372924]

>>17372395
Yes, Rawls efforts to rectify social inequality definitely imply a substantial moderate inheritance tax for sure. People cannot choose into which family they are born into, and designing background conditions in a way which does not accommodate for this fact is nothing short of permitting injustice in virtue of social contingency. I don't think Rawls wrote specifically on taxation but anything short of at least a moderate inheritance tax is outright inconsistent with the rest of his very clever argument, since that amounts to holding people responsible for an unchosen inequality.

[Anonymous No.17372926]

DO U MEMBA HE DINT SIGN THE PAPER FOR SOUTH AFRICA DO U MEMBA

[Anonymous No.17372927]

>>17371828
>What he is arguing is that natural difference between individuals is ARBITRARY FROM A MORAL AND POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW
Interesting. How does he quantify such a belief?

[Anonymous No.17372932]

>>17372827
coming from the commie, it's almost a compliment

[Anonymous No.17372940]

>>17371400
Dilate

[Anonymous No.17372947]

>>17372924
*I don't think Rawls wrote specifically on inheritance taxation

[Anonymous No.17372963]

>>17372764
Thanks for the insight. I see what you mean about the degree of taxation and how it's an inherent and fundamental part of Rawl's system compared to liberalism.

[Anonymous No.17372972]

>>17371456
Being alive at all is an accident, Rawls seemingly seeks to organize and moralize chaos. This is completely off the deep end crazy.

[Anonymous No.17372987]

>>17372947
In the first third of AToJ he doesn't explicitly mention it but he does say that people under the Veil should take other generations into account.

>Since the persons in the original position know that they are contemporaries (taking the present time of entry interpretation), they can favor their generation by refusing to make any sacrifices at all for their successors; they simply acknowledge the principle that no one has a duty to save for posterity. Previous generations have saved or they have not; there is nothing the parties can now do to affect that. So in this instance the veil of ignorance fails to secure the desired result. Therefore, to handle the question of justice between generations, I modify the motivation assumption and add a further constraint (§22). With these adjustments, no generation is able to formulate principles especially designed
to advance its own cause and some significant limits on savings principles can be derived (§44). Whatever a person’s temporal position, each is forced to choose for all.

[Anonymous No.17372988]

>>17372858
>>17372872
>>17372868
The alternative system of progressive income tax actually shafts the person who has the MOST right to the money, me the motherfucker who earned it, wage garnishment is morally manifold less defendable than inheritance tax. You guys must be some aimless kids trying to set yourself up suckling mommy and daddy’s teats.

[Anonymous No.17372999]

>>17371565
If the start of ones life is an accident, then the process of the benefits perpetuated throughout ones life are also an accident, as well this is compounded by accidents creating accidents(breeding). None of which carries over any fault. The weak should not feel guilty, nor should the strong feel fortunate. It is all a accidental process and even the awareness of the case is a playing out of the accidentalism.

[Anonymous No.17373003]

>>17372927
You mean, how does Rawls justify the idea of equal citizenship? He uses justification from the original position. He takes it as a given that persons are free and equal moral citizens with a certain conception of the good and who are capable of cooperating with other individuals over the course of their life for mutual benefit. In fact, that is a presumption on which he builds up premises of original position, where no one person has a stronger voice than the other. If one believes that, in an original position, somebody should have a stronger voice than other group of people then one has to accept the risk that he will have the weaker voice, and since that endangers prospects of realization of his conception of the good that is not a configuration that an individual is willing to accept, that would be outright irrational.

[Anonymous No.17373014]

>>17372987
Oh yes, sure, forgot about this part. So, this also puts limitation on how extreme inheritance policy could be - take too much and you are being unfair to future generations.

[Anonymous No.17373023]

>>17371828
Talented people breeding together are more likely to continue the trend of talented humans being born, this implies a surplus of which they would be morally inclined to give away. In fact talented people tend to be more charitable anyways.

Is Rawls advocating for eugenics? By directly engineering surplus creators, the disadvantaged have less of a ladder to climb.

[Anonymous No.17373044]

>>17372022
Much of behavior is due to epigenetic traits, any degree of handicap would work against supporting the building of these traits.

[Anonymous No.17373063]

>>17372988
you ain't earning shit dude
commie posting on /lit/, please

[Anonymous No.17373066]

>>17372119
Ok but take gender, being a man directly implies entire categories of labor where men can make more money because of the nature of their bodies. Women have these cases too. The social and natural overlap wildly.

[Anonymous No.17373079]

>>17373063
WRONG. How the fuck do you figure a guy championing Cool Cal Coolidge is a commie?

[Anonymous No.17373083]

>>17372644
>>17372988
Why are you assuming that inheritors are by and large just lazy freeloaders? You're getting pretty worked up about this in particular
you seem pretty resentful anon

[Anonymous No.17373093]

>>17373079
How the fuck do you figure someone championing inheritance rights is an ancap?

[Anonymous No.17373101]

>>17373003
Shouldnt citizenry ultimately have a performance standard? Automatic citizenry allows poor qualities to continue without natural limiting pathways.

[Anonymous No.17373131]

From what I've gathered ITT Rawls seems to not acknowledge whatsoever the carryover of traits from parent to child, as well as the traits built by environment

He has good intentions but you can play this game without a blindfold

[Anonymous No.17373147]

>>17373023
>>17373044
The problem with most historically conceived systems of eugenics is that they are insensitive to basic liberal values of autonomy or equality - say, undesirables under Indira Gandhi's regime were castrated, and many countries have passed around laws which prohibited the desirables from mixing with undesirables unless they wanted to undergo forced abortion. If it would theoretically be possible to create a system of liberal eugenics which both makes your offspring better off and is consistent with equality and freedom then I can imagine there being normative argument in favor of eugenics, but as far as my inner light can see "liberal eugenics" is as much of a contradiction as "liberal racism" or "ethnic democracy".

>>17373066

Sure, that's why difference principle tries to amend both social and natural inequalities simultaneously. Rawls doesn't create two incompatible principles to deal with two kinds of inequalities.

>>17373101

Rawls would say that such arrangement would be discarded under the veil of ignorance - if you accept the risk of you being a second-grade citizen due to being unable to meet some performative standard then you allow for your conception of the good being endangered - say, by you, the second-grade citizen, having less religious freedoms or other freedoms of association which enables you to live a fulfilling and complete life.

[Anonymous No.17373179]

>>17373147
Youre just replying to my poor formatting of multiple posts ill try to fix it

>We tried to apply the concept while still in a very dark world, it shouldn't stop us now.

>sorry if you already explained this but how does he amend crossover of social and natural inequalities?

>if there is no motivation to be the best why be the best? This is a system that fails to create surplus when the bottom line receives the greatest ratio of benefit vs ability

[Anonymous No.17373209]

>>17373093
>>17372768
>that the potential testator is a moral person who will willingly invest his wealth on his family. By taking away everything he has upon his death with the purpose of " encouraging people to attain their own valuable skills instead of allowing them to live off their trust funds and dithering their inheritance away" you seem to be excluding family from this government distribution. Therefore, a malicious testator could make sure than his next of kin would be left with virtually nothing. Ironically, current legislation in most countries has measures which allow the immediate family of the testator to take part in the estate despite not being mentioned in the will. Your system would lead to blatantly unjust and immoral outcomes.
>that the government would somehow more capable of using said resources instead of wasting them, it's like you've never heard of mobs, lobbies and general corruption. At least 70% of these assets would be liquified and invested by some bureocrat in Dubai. At least inheritance law (though disputes can get very ugly) ensure that most of the estate will go to the people which have the highest right to it
That’s pure anti government and anti tax rhetoric and nothing to do with inheritance vs progress income tax
>>17373083
What I’m arguing against is that it’s somehow more moral to take money out of MY pocket today rather than taking it when I’m dead. And I’m not worked up or emotional I’ve presented it very clearly. The only argument is a nonsense emotional appeal to
>THINK OF YOUR KIDS ANON!!!
When I say, I will think of them and make sure they are properly educated and I will pay to help them start their own business and secure low interest financing you guys just short circuit and quit arguing in good faith. None of you can answer WHY I should prefer to leave a bunch of money when I’m dead rather than getting the pleasure of seeing my children succeed with my help while I’m alive.

I’m summation inheritance tax+VAT>>>>>>>>>>> progressive income tax schemes.

[Anonymous No.17373229]

>>17373003
How does Rawlsian justice rectify power of wealth within the democratic polity? Money underpins every politicians and indeed the entire electoral system and thus creates people that, while not above the law per se, can controve situations whereby the law "glosses over" them.

[Anonymous No.17373283]

>>17371353
Rawls isn’t a leftist. Read a fucking book, retard

[Anonymous No.17373318]

you just have dumb people intermix racially and smart/elite people become eunuchs for ideological reasons

[Anonymous No.17373358]

>>17373179
>>We tried to apply the concept while still in a very dark world, it shouldn't stop us now.

How would that be possible?

>>sorry if you already explained this but how does he amend crossover of social and natural inequalities?

By designing a basic structure of society in a way in which all people hold equal citizenship (no first- and second-grade citizens) and in which economic inequalities (which could arise to factors such as a combination of social and economic inequality) are permitted only as long as they are to the benefit of the least well-off.

>>if there is no motivation to be the best why be the best? This is a system that fails to create surplus when the bottom line receives the greatest ratio of benefit vs ability

Oh, I see. So, what you're trying to say is that background conditions should be designed in a way which permits the 1) genetically lucky; 2) virtuous to flourish to their maximum. In aToJ, Rawls actually takes this proposal seriously, designating it under a motto "justice is happiness according to virtue". And so, the superior ones morally deserve a system which gives them special legal entitlements, such as a more extensive scheme of legal rights or better economic standing compared to the rest. To that, Rawls would say that nobody deserves to have a claim to their talents or natural characteristics - I may have certain legitimate expectations in virtue of me having some characteristics - say, a gifted painter can legitimately expect to receive some form of support from the state without which he would be unable to sustain himself through living, there is nothing absurd in designs like these. Such a system of legitimate expectations could, in fact, be quite extensive in a society which prizes some forms of excellence. But nobody deserves in a MORAL sense to have a stronger voice while choosing a basic social structure because nobody DESERVES his talents - they are his in virtue of nothing but brute good luck. As such, background conditions in a fair society must be designed in a way which rectifies brute bad luck.

[Anonymous No.17373392]

>>17373229
Many socialists dislike Rawls because he permits too much inequality of wealth in theory for reason you outlined here. Rawls briefly touches this subject and says that while in principle inequality of wealth so extreme to undermine democracy is allowed within the bounds of his theory, his theory is likely to have the contrary effect of reducing the currently existing extreme inequality and capitalist corruption of democratic spirit.

Though he doesn't provide a strict defense of this proposition, I think this is quite a plausible one.

[Anonymous No.17373396]

>>17373358
*social and natural

[Anonymous No.17373401]

>>17373358
1st) I could come up with many suggestions, obviously each suggestion can be reduced to fascist ideology which I disagree with but that's how it would be reduced

2nd) that didnt help me understand his amendment, if a man has a different amount of jobs and a different degree of performance than a woman and both fill certain niches then social and natural inequality can never be bridged, additionally sexual dimorphism is not consistent across different populations

3rd) it seems as if theres a very small proportion of hyper motivated people on the world, that will attain 1000x of even the extremely productive tier immediately below them(billionaire vs millionaire) regardless of worldly conditions, I can only imagine that at death they have their benefits cast into society, while they live they can have their dreams. But also this creates a caste system. Ive seen simulations where groups constantly separate and specialize, its inevitable. It seems that you must constantly "shake the jar" to have any kind of equilibrium

[Anonymous No.17373413]

>>17371828
>physical and intellectual superiors
>morally equal as citizens in a democratic state
honestly the greatest argument against democracy and morality that exists

[Anonymous No.17374016]

>>17371400
>right wingers hate identity politics
Absoloute brainlet take

[Anonymous No.17374185]

>>17373283
>architect of social justice
>not a leftist

Hurr durr. He's not a leftist by today's Marxist standards, but he is the founder of social justice ideology. Everything sjws whinge about derives in some small way from his theory about the veil of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.17375516]

>>17371828
How does it feel to be retroactively refuted by Carl Schmidt

[Anonymous No.17375807]

>>17371303
Statist politics has to be totalitarian - you will not make sense of it and all propositions will be highly contentious (as politics is just a prelude to war)
Since humans posses these natural differences (of opinions as well) they will also individually prefer different social arrangements; the only justifiable position is to let different groups of people self-organize themselves differently - with a right to freely enter and exit any of these arrangements (you can have your slavery if you'll find voluntary slaves).
Rawls' endeavour of looking for a best system is futile; it won't be the best for people who don't like it and he needs totalitarianism to enforce it on them.

[Anonymous No.17376323]

>>17372644
hahahaha what the fuck
people want to inherit HOUSES, LAND, and BUSINESSES, they dont give a shit about muh lavish education or whatever the fuck youre peddling
you have any idea for how many generations a domicile may be used by a single family? Jesus christ it's the one thing left untouched by modern society, where fathers and mothers can teach their children their craft so that the former can pass it on to his/her children and so forth, i.e. becoming a - family - business
>inb4 just buy a new house and pull yourself by the bootstraps lol
i swear you must be living in coo-coo land dude

[Anonymous No.17376461]

>>17371303
>How are you even supposed to legislate on such a thing?
See either the Sallic, Frisian or Anglo-Saxon laws or the Laws of Manu.

[Anonymous No.17376582]

Humanity should just go extinct instead of trying to come up with the best system to facilitate dominating, competing and shitting all over one another in the most peaceful way possible.

[Anonymous No.17376597]

>>17371303

Government and market are the same thing.

[Anonymous No.17376606]

>>17376582
>it's the antinatalist incel again

[Anonymous No.17376658]

>>17371303
wait isn't Rawls the guy whose theory of justice is that if you didn't know if you were a criminal/poor you wouldask for lenient justice and socialist economics?
Has anyone ever told him that if he didn't know if he was snigger he would ask for the apartheid?

[Anonymous No.17377299]

Gotta be honest this Rawls guy is very tempting but the closer I look the more absurd it becomes

[Anonymous No.17377327]

>>17377299
Veil of ignorance is a based idea, the rest not so much. Very boring book too

[Anonymous No.17377554]

>>17377327
no it's the definition of a de-based idea, it simply breeds ethical sloth.

[Anonymous No.17377913]

>>17376323
>parents die
>leave you a house
>pay a one time tax on it based on the assessed value of the house
>government doesn’t get to tax your income ever, so you have plenty of money to pay this one time tax
Like get a job you dumb hippy. Pay the tax. No one is trying to take the house from you.

[Anonymous No.17378365]

>>17371353
I don't read books by niggers.

[Anonymous No.17379167]

>>17371400
This whole post is basically just the equivalent of calling a black man a coon on twitter for disagreeing with you. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.17379704]

>>17372422
Well if you're concerned about stuff like "duty" and "selfishness" you're not much of a liberal and are more of a conservative but that's the thing, conservativism can't win by guilt tripping everyone in a liberal environment and rightists need a strong state to enforce their vision in the end or it won't work.

[Anonymous No.17379856]

>>17379704
>Well if you're concerned about stuff like "duty" and "selfishness" you're not much of a liberal and are more of a conservative but that's the thing
I don't think those concepts are incompatible with liberalism. Your duties to society are a fairly key theme in Locke's second treatise on government.

[Anonymous No.17379981]

>>17371303
We need genetic editing so everyone can become a genius athletic chad.

[Anonymous No.17380498]

>>17371353
>leftist beliefs.
stopped reading your post right here

[Anonymous No.17381068]

>>17371400
really shameful post desu

[Anonymous No.17381117]

>>17372972
bingo.

[Anonymous No.17381483]

>>17376582
How about humanity instead tries to come up with the best system to facilitate space exploration and cooperation in the most peaceful way possible.

[Anonymous No.17381499]

>>17371353
Despite all the replies to this post he is right.

[Anonymous No.17381509]

>>17371400
Sowell says basically the same stuff as other people of vaguely lolbertarian persuasion. Maybe he is famous because he's black, idk, but he does an adequate job of explaining the concepts so it doesn't really matter, it doesn't invalidate what he's saying.

[Anonymous No.17381531]

>>17371828
>naturally gifted athletes or intelligent chess players do not get to claim that they deserve the kind of system of background conditions that privileges them and gives them more chances and opportunities in life simply because they are gifted
Why?

[Anonymous No.17381551]

>>17371973
>material conditions
>necessities of the system
>material change
God I hate you subhuman dregs and your reductionism.

[Anonymous No.17381554]

>>17381483
This is a form of domination

[Anonymous No.17381588]

>>17381554
Everything is "domination". Your brain is a complex system with competing impulses but only one is allowed to move you in a certain direction, dominating and pushing other impulses to the side

[Anonymous No.17381598]

>>17371353
He is correct.
I also love how the mere mention of Sowell's name triggers /lit/ so much. Posters here can be so sensitive!

[Anonymous No.17381604]

>>17372119
There is no such thing as the natural lottery. I am the product of my mother and father, I could be no other, and if they cared enough to provide me with a better future you might say it is not earned by me, but it is the right of my father, and I am an extension of that man.

[Anonymous No.17381617]

>>17371353
>You cannot correct for natural inequality because if you did it for some, it would have to be done for all for it to be just
We ready do this for people with disabilities

[Anonymous No.17381620]

>>17381588
This is why I let all the voices in my head have a democratic debate forum. They don't usually decide on a course of action but it is very egalitarian apart from when Bartholomew does his demagogue act

[Anonymous No.17381654]

>>17373003
>He takes it as a given that persons are free and equal moral citizens with a certain conception of the good and who are capable of cooperating with other individuals over the course of their life for mutual benefit.
Has this guy never met blacks or what?

[Anonymous No.17381717]

>>17381620
the democratic process brought you here, shitposting on 4chan. maybe it's time for a demagogue

[Anonymous No.17381806]

>>17372395
My dad would just burn his money, or buy things and donate them to me, rather than let it go to the government.

Inheritance has existed since before the Ancient Greeks. It's silly to think you can end it.
(Before you mention slavery: it hasn't ended. Nor has religion and other things that modern intellectuals thought would eventually end. They're Lindy).

[Anonymous No.17381871]

>>17381806
>assess a tax on inheritance
>YOU WANT TO END INHERITANCE???
God you people are thick. And I encourage your father to spend every dime while he’s alive and give any gifts he deems appropriate to himself and anyone he wants. I welcome this! It stimulates an honest economy with honest work! Plus my tax scheme would account for this with a VAT.

[Anonymous No.17383558]

bump

[Anonymous No.17383783]

>>17381483
You can't have pure cooperation. People compete to cooperate best (test scores, class rank, employability, etc.) and even those winners just end up serving employers and shareholders. Compete to be the best wageslave. As long as there are natural power disparities between people, some will gain power and the ability to make others serve them. I see no reason to spread this malignant tumor of a species to another planet just so it can multiply the domination.

[Anonymous No.17384535]

>>17371421
That's not even reddit spacing retard. You're trying too hard to fit in here.

[Anonymous No.17385343]

>>17381806
Nigger tier thinking.