against the state (4): rawls

fourth of the series explaining the arguments from "against the state: an introduction to anarchist political theory," this one attacking the theory of john rawls.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• anarchism
• against
• state
• anarchy
• government
• legitimacy
• philosophy
• james
• john
• rawls
• political
• politics

[annuitcoeptis2008]

I really recommend that you read Plato, Aristotle and Socrates so you can understand the basics of politics. It is extremely sorrowful to see you embarrass yourself in this manner.

[crispytheok]

good luck reading socrates, dude.

[crispytheok]

somehow, after all these years of teaching rawls etc, i managed to screw up the basic statement of the principles of justice. i'd just re-do the video, but i don't want to lose the comments, rik's response, etc. so i'm gonna put up an addendum.

[crispytheok]

maybe i will do something like that.

[modallogic1]

You're confused. The original position is just a tool to test our evaluations about justice, it is not a historic occurance. Rawls states that the tool can be used for democ. or comm. societies. I believe it can be used for anarcistic societies as well. There is no right or wrong in the natural distribution of abilities or goods. What essentially is right or wrong is the way we choose to deal with these differences. A person with downs should be given a opportunity to lead a fulfilling life, etc

[mmcrevey]

The difference principle is about efficiency....... Somebody has to be in charge for a society to function properly (or any group for that matter) And imposing limitations on the leaders governed by the people.

[LikeAGlassAsterisk]

....In Justice as Fairness: A Restatement I think Rawls specifies the issue of political power, through his notion of the equal value of political liberties. So, I don't think Rawls thought that political power had to be equally distributed so much as political liberties had to be of equal value meaning that one's wealth did not mean that one's political liberties were more valuable.

[AHBritton]

If these people really have next to no political power, why do politicians watch polls and craft messages and campaign or do anything but exert their power in whatever way they want? This seems to me at the very least a vast oversimplification of the state and political life.

[AHBritton]

You make comments at various times that the people constituting the state have all the political power as if this statement needs no justification. If this is really true why are they in any way concerned with the general populaces perception of them?

[mcreynoldspa]

On the distribution of political power: The entire delgation of animals was quite patient. Each animal was given his say. The badgers spoke, and the eagles, and the salamanders. Finally the rabbits, ears twitching, took the stage. One rabbit held forth rather eloquently on the beauty of equality among all animals. The host of animals listened patiently. Then one of the lions spoke up, "You argue for equality, but where are your teeth and claws?"

[Tiwaking]

That was remarkable

Could you please put a link to where you can buy your book in the sidebar please?

[miniat30]

Thank you so much. This video gave me some idea. I will buy the book...:)

[c0nzzz]

yeah... its a good start to Rawls and i get your angle in the sense that, i believe you're connecting this to anarchism, but a basic principle in Rawls is that inequalities are acceptable provided we all have access to those positions. Whether that be president or center for the Lakers. Provided we create a "fair" approach of determining who gets what (behind the veil) then its cool. So long as i get to challenge Shaq or Pao to a game of one on one then it is fair.

[cccombotron]

If the goods flow to the people in power, then Rawls theory would assume they are the weakest, otherwise it's no longer justice/fairness. The main problem i have with Rawls theory in particular is that he seems to leave out choice, but i'm not sure if it's Rawls or just any Social Contract.

[cccombotron]

I understand the point you're making, but i don´t think Rawls theory contradicts itself. It´s just highly unlikely for people with power to fairly distribute goods, i would agree. But Rawls not mainly concerned with corruption, which i think you´re addressing. Rawls idea is that inequalities in power should always benefit the weakest. If it does not it´s no longer justice accoring to Rawls standard.