I am personally a bigger fan of transparency than generality, noting that the two often conflict. What if only some people need helping? The best policy response won’t be perfectly general, nor should we force it to be.
I don’t see the conflict. Both are limiting principles. So a principle of generality will rule out non-general but transparent policies, and a principle of transparency will rule out general but non-transparent policies. To say that a rule or policy that passes through one filter might get stopped by the other is not to say the filters are in conflict. There are many rules that will pass through both.
I sympathize with Tyler’s point about generality, though. Of course, the rule “If you’re a citizen, and you’re in need, then the state gives you some help” is in fact perfectly general. It applies to all citizens. But of course, “If you’re a citizen, and you’re a member of an industry whose profits are threatened by foreign competition, then the state gives you a subsidy” is general, too. The point of the generality requirement is to prevent the state from being able to see characteristics of its citizens that are irrelevant to the legitimate functions of government. If the state can’t officially know that you’re 6’2″, it cannot use its power to predate on taxpayers for the benefit of the people that are 6’2″. I don’t think it is absurd to suppose that there may be some way to formulate the principle such that allows the state to see citizens in need, so that it can send them transfers, but does not allow the state to see or act on the basis of the interests of the lumber industry. If the state can only see citizens, and not subclasses of citizens, then preferential treatment, good and bad is prohibited. But if it can officially see some subclasses, then the criteria for membership in that subclass is going to become a political football.
“The point of the generality requirement is to prevent the state from being able to see characteristics of its citizens that are irrelevant to the legitimate functions of government. If the state can’t officially know that you’re 6′2″, it cannot use its power to predate on taxpayers for the benefit of the people that are 6′2″.”
I don’t see how this follows. “If you’re a citizen and you’re 6’2″ you get a pony” is perfectly general and there’s no a priori reason why such legislation would be ruled out. In order to meet the criterion, it need only follow the form (∀x)(Px ⊃ Qx), where P is some condition and Q is some state action. But P can be all kinds of things, up to and including “being a citizen named Will Wilkinson and working for the Cato Institute”. You could limit the range of possible conditions through ad hoc measures, but intoning “generality” in itself doesn’t move the pile.
If I’ve got the logical formulation wrong then let me know, because I really would like this to be a useful idea, but I honestly don’t see how it is.
“The point of the generality requirement is to prevent the state from being able to see characteristics of its citizens that are irrelevant to the legitimate functions of government. If the state can’t officially know that you’re 6′2″, it cannot use its power to predate on taxpayers for the benefit of the people that are 6′2″.”
I don’t see how this follows. “If you’re a citizen and you’re 6’2″ you get a pony” is perfectly general and there’s no a priori reason why such legislation would be ruled out. In order to meet the criterion, it need only follow the form (∀x)(Px ⊃ Qx), where P is some condition and Q is some state action. But P can be all kinds of things, up to and including “being a citizen named Will Wilkinson and working for the Cato Institute”. You could limit the range of possible conditions through ad hoc measures, but intoning “generality” in itself doesn’t move the pile.
If I’ve got the logical formulation wrong then let me know, because I really would like this to be a useful idea, but I honestly don’t see how it is.
I didn’t explain myself well enough! I was trying to say precisely that generality per se doesn’t help. I agree entirely with your point about logical form. What I was trying to get across is that the intention of the generality idea is not simply to be technically general, which is pointless, but to prevent transfers to people who inhabit categories that ought to be invisible to the state qua legitimate. Transfers to 6’2″ folks can be guided by a general principle; but that category ought not be one the state may discern. The restiction on which classes the state may see will have to do with some other substantive condition for legitimate power.
I didn’t explain myself well enough! I was trying to say precisely that generality per se doesn’t help. I agree entirely with your point about logical form. What I was trying to get across is that the intention of the generality idea is not simply to be technically general, which is pointless, but to prevent transfers to people who inhabit categories that ought to be invisible to the state qua legitimate. Transfers to 6’2″ folks can be guided by a general principle; but that category ought not be one the state may discern. The restiction on which classes the state may see will have to do with some other substantive condition for legitimate power.
OK, gotcha. I understand what you’re trying to do here and I don’t really have a problem with it, I’m just skeptical of how much of an impact it would have in practice. Lots of the most damaging policies I can think of are capable of fitting into that framework.
OK, gotcha. I understand what you’re trying to do here and I don’t really have a problem with it, I’m just skeptical of how much of an impact it would have in practice. Lots of the most damaging policies I can think of are capable of fitting into that framework.