Comments on: Are Transparency and Generality in Conflict http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Matt McIntosh http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7994 Matt McIntosh Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:31:13 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7994 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.

]]> By: Matt McIntosh http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7997 Matt McIntosh Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:31:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7997 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.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7993 Will Wilkinson Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:11:22 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7993 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 <em>intention</em> 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.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7996 Will Wilkinson Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:11:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7996 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 <em>intention</em> 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.

]]> By: Matt McIntosh http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7992 Matt McIntosh Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:51:24 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7992 <i>"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> 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.

]]> By: Matt McIntosh http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7995 Matt McIntosh Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:51:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/27/are-transparency-and-generality-in-conflict/#comment-7995 <i>"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> 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.

]]>