Comments on: de Jasay and Smartification http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gene Callahan http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7177 Gene Callahan Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:39:47 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7177 James, I think to make this work, however, Rawls has to reduce the diverse citizenry to essential contentless points of rationality. Then we get the conclusion, "If we are all identical, we will be able to reach a political consensus." It falls apart as soon as anyone knows as much about themselves as, say, how much risk they enjoy/can tolerate. James, I think to make this work, however, Rawls has to reduce the diverse citizenry to essential contentless points of rationality. Then we get the conclusion, “If we are all identical, we will be able to reach a political consensus.” It falls apart as soon as anyone knows as much about themselves as, say, how much risk they enjoy/can tolerate.

]]> By: Gene Callahan http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7190 Gene Callahan Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:39:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7190 James, I think to make this work, however, Rawls has to reduce the diverse citizenry to essential contentless points of rationality. Then we get the conclusion, "If we are all identical, we will be able to reach a political consensus." It falls apart as soon as anyone knows as much about themselves as, say, how much risk they enjoy/can tolerate. James, I think to make this work, however, Rawls has to reduce the diverse citizenry to essential contentless points of rationality. Then we get the conclusion, “If we are all identical, we will be able to reach a political consensus.” It falls apart as soon as anyone knows as much about themselves as, say, how much risk they enjoy/can tolerate.

]]> By: James http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7176 James Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:50:21 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7176 Re: de Jasay's remark on Rawls, the basis for Rawls' version of the social contract is that the ideal form of the state is the one that people would agree to if they knew nothing about themselves and had to form such an agreement from behind a "veil of ignorance." De Jasay is pointing out that Rawls departs from his stated assumption of zero self knowledge when he dismisses the possibility that the parties refuse to bargain and walk away from the table. I'm normally a much bigger fan of de Jasay than Rawls, but on this one I think Rawls' case survives de Jasay's attack with minor modification. Rawls assumes that rational people make choices that limit their worst case risk. If they don't know who they are, they prefer a society in which the worst off are as well of as possible. Similarly, in forming a contract, ANY contract is better in terms of worst case risk than leaving the table and hoping for the best. Re: de Jasay’s remark on Rawls, the basis for Rawls’ version of the social contract is that the ideal form of the state is the one that people would agree to if they knew nothing about themselves and had to form such an agreement from behind a “veil of ignorance.” De Jasay is pointing out that Rawls departs from his stated assumption of zero self knowledge when he dismisses the possibility that the parties refuse to bargain and walk away from the table. I’m normally a much bigger fan of de Jasay than Rawls, but on this one I think Rawls’ case survives de Jasay’s attack with minor modification. Rawls assumes that rational people make choices that limit their worst case risk. If they don’t know who they are, they prefer a society in which the worst off are as well of as possible. Similarly, in forming a contract, ANY contract is better in terms of worst case risk than leaving the table and hoping for the best.

]]> By: James http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7189 James Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:50:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7189 Re: de Jasay's remark on Rawls, the basis for Rawls' version of the social contract is that the ideal form of the state is the one that people would agree to if they knew nothing about themselves and had to form such an agreement from behind a "veil of ignorance." De Jasay is pointing out that Rawls departs from his stated assumption of zero self knowledge when he dismisses the possibility that the parties refuse to bargain and walk away from the table. I'm normally a much bigger fan of de Jasay than Rawls, but on this one I think Rawls' case survives de Jasay's attack with minor modification. Rawls assumes that rational people make choices that limit their worst case risk. If they don't know who they are, they prefer a society in which the worst off are as well of as possible. Similarly, in forming a contract, ANY contract is better in terms of worst case risk than leaving the table and hoping for the best. Re: de Jasay’s remark on Rawls, the basis for Rawls’ version of the social contract is that the ideal form of the state is the one that people would agree to if they knew nothing about themselves and had to form such an agreement from behind a “veil of ignorance.” De Jasay is pointing out that Rawls departs from his stated assumption of zero self knowledge when he dismisses the possibility that the parties refuse to bargain and walk away from the table. I’m normally a much bigger fan of de Jasay than Rawls, but on this one I think Rawls’ case survives de Jasay’s attack with minor modification. Rawls assumes that rational people make choices that limit their worst case risk. If they don’t know who they are, they prefer a society in which the worst off are as well of as possible. Similarly, in forming a contract, ANY contract is better in terms of worst case risk than leaving the table and hoping for the best.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7175 Will Wilkinson Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:31:33 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7175 Great! I declare it smart-ass-ifying. Great! I declare it smart-ass-ifying.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7188 Will Wilkinson Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:31:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7188 Great! I declare it smart-ass-ifying. Great! I declare it smart-ass-ifying.

]]> By: Greg Newburn http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7174 Greg Newburn Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:24:27 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7174 It's back in full effect, Will, and it's better than ever! If you ever read it you'd know that already. It’s back in full effect, Will, and it’s better than ever!

If you ever read it you’d know that already.

]]> By: Greg Newburn http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7187 Greg Newburn Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:24:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7187 It's back in full effect, Will, and it's better than ever! If you ever read it you'd know that already. It’s back in full effect, Will, and it’s better than ever!

If you ever read it you’d know that already.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7173 Will Wilkinson Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:08:36 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7173 Tim, The argument was just that Rawls is inconsistent about his idea of ideal theory. Within the context of my larger project, I wanted to show that Rawls himself doesn't take ideal theory as strict compliance theory seriously, which indicates that ideal theory can't be that useful unless it is somewhat less idealized. In which case empirical questions about psychology and institutions become more important than Rawls makes them out to be. And a more empirically robust model conceptions of the person and the well ordered society will lead us to reject out of hand, as de Jasay says, <blockquote>Rawls's bland view of the redistributive process as painless and costless, and of the state as an automatic machine which dispenses "social decisions" when we feed our wishes into it.</blockquote> Tim, The argument was just that Rawls is inconsistent about his idea of ideal theory. Within the context of my larger project, I wanted to show that Rawls himself doesn’t take ideal theory as strict compliance theory seriously, which indicates that ideal theory can’t be that useful unless it is somewhat less idealized. In which case empirical questions about psychology and institutions become more important than Rawls makes them out to be. And a more empirically robust model conceptions of the person and the well ordered society will lead us to reject out of hand, as de Jasay says,

Rawls’s bland view of the redistributive process as painless and costless, and of the state as an automatic machine which dispenses “social decisions” when we feed our wishes into it.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7186 Will Wilkinson Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:08:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7186 Tim, The argument was just that Rawls is inconsistent about his idea of ideal theory. Within the context of my larger project, I wanted to show that Rawls himself doesn't take ideal theory as strict compliance theory seriously, which indicates that ideal theory can't be that useful unless it is somewhat less idealized. In which case empirical questions about psychology and institutions become more important than Rawls makes them out to be. And a more empirically robust model conceptions of the person and the well ordered society will lead us to reject out of hand, as de Jasay says, <blockquote>Rawls's bland view of the redistributive process as painless and costless, and of the state as an automatic machine which dispenses "social decisions" when we feed our wishes into it.</blockquote> Tim, The argument was just that Rawls is inconsistent about his idea of ideal theory. Within the context of my larger project, I wanted to show that Rawls himself doesn’t take ideal theory as strict compliance theory seriously, which indicates that ideal theory can’t be that useful unless it is somewhat less idealized. In which case empirical questions about psychology and institutions become more important than Rawls makes them out to be. And a more empirically robust model conceptions of the person and the well ordered society will lead us to reject out of hand, as de Jasay says,

Rawls’s bland view of the redistributive process as painless and costless, and of the state as an automatic machine which dispenses “social decisions” when we feed our wishes into it.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7172 Will Wilkinson Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:03:39 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7172 Tim, No, I never finished the paper. I quit working on my dissertation and started working at Cato! I do hope to get back to it, though. Greg, I understand from inside sources that the Teaser is defunct. Tim, No, I never finished the paper. I quit working on my dissertation and started working at Cato! I do hope to get back to it, though.

Greg, I understand from inside sources that the Teaser is defunct.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7185 Will Wilkinson Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:03:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7185 Tim, No, I never finished the paper. I quit working on my dissertation and started working at Cato! I do hope to get back to it, though. Greg, I understand from inside sources that the Teaser is defunct. Tim, No, I never finished the paper. I quit working on my dissertation and started working at Cato! I do hope to get back to it, though.

Greg, I understand from inside sources that the Teaser is defunct.

]]> By: Greg Newburn http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7171 Greg Newburn Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:00:42 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7171 Haven't you forgotten someone, Will? The Teaser?? Haven’t you forgotten someone, Will? The Teaser??

]]> By: Greg Newburn http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7184 Greg Newburn Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7184 Haven't you forgotten someone, Will? The Teaser?? Haven’t you forgotten someone, Will? The Teaser??

]]> By: Tim W http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7170 Tim W Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:48:29 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/12/20/de-jasay-and-smartification/#comment-7170 Will, the latter one makes the most sense to me as a possibility. On your earlier post- did you ever get that damn Rawls article done? And I still am not sure about the argument you make in your earlier post. Raz for example, argues that even a society of angels would need a legal system to coordinate among permissible moralities. (Joseph Raz, Practical Reason and Norms (2nd edn, 1990), pp. 159–60.) Will, the latter one makes the most sense to me as a possibility.

On your earlier post- did you ever get that damn Rawls article done? And I still am not sure about the argument you make in your earlier post. Raz for example, argues that even a society of angels would need a legal system to coordinate among permissible moralities.
(Joseph Raz, Practical Reason and Norms (2nd edn, 1990), pp. 159–60.)

]]>