|
4cSFhv26EwpVpWaBd2QM3mWqAjrGtarUo7
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
rpeiPCu3p68eiKuFyWqXB5ff2o9hBPCZkB
|
|
|
|
|
please pump up the volume, in Thy mercy.
|
|
|
|
Is that including historical background? If so, they have to receive a biased view as to how things actually transpired, what causes economic problems, etc.
The only way for them to not receive a biased view would be to actually see and know everything, in which case they would be godlike entities and that just makes the Original Position as worthwhile as asking "What would Jesus do?"
"What would Jesus do?" I like that analogy  I think its more of a tool/exercise to put a person or a group of people in a state to minimize there biases. Rawls argument is usually used to justify some egalitarian meritocracy but Crispen Sartwell uses Rawls's argument to come to the conclusion that a group in the Original Position would choose anarchy. Not that I agree with him but I do find his argument beautiful. |
|
|
|
They wouldn't come to a consensus because the issues being considered are inherently based in subjectivity and experience.
Furthermore, the ends are not clear, either.
A disembodied ghost's opinion would be shaped by the biases fed to it as "fact".
yep
Well, what knowledge of economics do they receive?
Lets assume all All. Continue. |
|
|
|
This forum is full of low-value noise, and things that are either NSFW or blatantly illegal.
Most businesses and most citizens are tax-paying and law-abiding, and that is the target audience for achieving bitcoin acceptance as a global currency. It is rather difficult to convince new merchants to accept bitcoins, if the forums are their primary contact point with the bitcoin community.
Bitcoin is an ideology-neutral currency; we're not here to convert the world to libertarianism or crypto-anarchism. We're here to make the first global, decentralized currency successful.
+1 |
|
|
|
Seems like a good idea to me.
Let people realize that this forum isn't the only place to discuss bitcoin.
Frankly - there are aspects of this forum that are likely to harm the image of bitcoin and reduce uptake with merchants.
The less this forum is seen as representing the entire community, the better.
+1 |
|
|
|
Trolls, Dragons...
We need some Knights.
 |
|
|
|
It is impossible to objectively remove oneself from his life experiences. It doesn't matter if this is the right way to perform justice or not - it is impossible to perform justice in this manner anyway.
That which has been seen cannot be unseen.
That which has been heard cannot be unheard.
That which has been felt cannot be unfelt.
That which has been experienced cannot be unexperienced.
Not quite what I was looking for but in the right direction. I'm assuming Rawls would agree but when you expand the conversation to a large group these biases are minimized and as the group becomes larger and as knowledge progresses the model allows for evolution. The question is can you find a point in his argument that isn't adaptable and can be refuted with his own model's inclusion of the group in the original position's "knowledge of psychology/sociology". hints: red headed brownish/red headed anarchist, "knowledge of psychology/sociology" (this particular knowledge can be assumed to be known by many if not a majority of citizens today.) By the way in very odd and biologically interesting way all those statements can be invalidated but in the broad sense lets assume them to be true in the majority of cases. |
|
|
|
I'm convinced.. I now like ROLF more than ROFL. The question is do 30 Hellen's agree? |
|
|
|
Was that Hoppe or Rothbard??? It assumes one has to experience something in order to Know something. Can one assume the human brain can fathom that which they have not experienced? So you don't know 300 nM until you experienced it? I would argue that I have never experienced it but I know it. Rawls doesn't assume equal distribution of all resources and while epistemological somnambulists has good comedic value it has little relevance to Rawls actors. Anthony Flew might be more on point?
Who understands starvation better, a teacher in California or a child in Biafra? You can understand it in a sense, true, but without experiencing it, you won't factor it in the same way as a person who has. I assume you haven't had your house robbed before, and more likely than not (though there are exceptions, as there are with everyone) you don't protect excessively, whereas a person who has may very well turn their house into a fortress in fear of another robbery (illogically, since it is unlikely they will be robbed twice). What is private property? Why bother with it? If you are a disembodied ghoul with little understanding of scarcity (the reason for economic systems at all), you are unlikely to factor in the requirement for private property, and thus you will reach Rawl's conclusions (because his scenario was made PRECISELY to prove his own point, not to create an unbiased scenario). You also seem to be missing the point. These people are in a room, correct? Who made the room? Where is it located? Who owns the room? Also, where did the people come from? Did they pop into existence? If they are hidden behind a veil of ignorance, are they still experiencing their own existence, the existence of others in the room, and the room itself? Also, that was Hoppe. [/quote] If that is Hoppe's argument then he seems to predicate his premise on a assumption that cognitive biases are are valid components for a basis of justice, economics, and power structure. You specificaly bring up the negative bias and illusion of control. I would not dismiss a system that minimizes putting undo weight on these psychologically unhealthy tenancies. Of course if you flat out refuse to incorparate what humanity has learned inn the past 60 years of psychology, sociology, cognitive neuroscience, ect. then we will have to agree to disagree. Rawls is not concerned with the origin of the room or its dimensions, it is just a thought exercise to allow a group to think outside their cognitive and experiential biases. I think there is a much more damning criticism of Rawl's model by everyones favorite hot blooded red headed anarchist that would be much more persuasive to the average Joe. And far more beautiful in its simplicity I might add. Just waiting for someone to bring it up. Sadly no one has yet, as far as I know. |
|
|
|
I agree with Vroomfondel, what we need are rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
ROLF |
|
|
|
Another one, this from Hoppe: While one would think that scarcity ranks among the general facts of society and economic theory, Rawls's parties, who supposedly knew about scarcity, were themselves strangely unaffected by this condition. In Rawls's construction of the "original position," there was no recognition of the fact that scarcity must be assumed to exist even here. Even in deliberating behind a veil of ignorance, one must still make use of scarce means—at least one's physical body and its standing room, i.e., labor and land. Even before beginning any ethical deliberation then, in order to make them possible, private or exclusive property in bodies and a principle regarding the private or exclusive appropriation of standing room must already be presupposed. In distinct contrast to this general fact of human nature, Rawls's moral "parties" were unconstrained by scarcities of any kind and hence did not qualify as actual humans but as free-floating wraiths or disembodied somnambulists. Such beings, Rawls concluded, cannot but "acknowledge as the first principle of justice one requiring an equal distribution (of all resources). Indeed, this principle is so obvious that we would expect it to occur to anyone immediately." True; for if it is assumed that "moral parties" are not human actors but disembodied entities, the notion of private property must indeed appear strange. As Rawls admitted with captivating frankness, he had simply "define[d] the original position so that we get the desired result." Rawls's imaginary parties had no resemblance whatsoever with human beings but were epistemological somnambulists; accordingly, his socialist-egalitarian theory of justice does not qualify as a human ethic, but something else entirely. As I said as it started, the "Original Position" is logically infeasible. For the entities surrounded by the "veil of ignorance" to be able to come to a decision, they must put aside reality and make arbitrary decisions. Was that Hoppe or Rothbard??? It assumes one has to experience something in order to Know something. Can one assume the human brain can fathom that which they have not experienced? So you don't know 300 nM until you experienced it? I would argue that I have never experienced it but I know it. Rawls doesn't assume equal distribution of all resources and while epistemological somnambulists has good comedic value it has little relevance to Rawls actors. Anthony Flew might be more on point? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
