• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Original Position and Justice

scatt said:
Market failures are a result of the state.
Click to expand...

Fail. That's just being ignorant of economic theory. What about time-inconsistent preferences, information asymmetries, non-competitive markets, principal–agent problems, externalities, or the problem public goods? The economy needs the government to make the free market reach its (theoretical) potential. Stable macroeconomic policy which includes solid monetary and fiscal policy is crucial for a modern, sophisticated economy.

A mixed economy welfare state is inefficient and has poor polices, sure. But right now, all first world countries are mixed economy welfare states. It is the current fad.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't support the welfare state as it is. I'd support a negative income tax (à la Friedman). I'm for universal healthcare and a school-voucher system. We should be looking for pragmatic solutions to our problems, not ideological claptrap. How could the state possibly be abolished in the modern age? It is so far-fetched and, quite simply, unthinkable.
 
Aekos said:
What about time-inconsistent preferences, information asymmetries, non-competitive markets, principal–agent problems, externalities, or the problem public goods?

Well, I don't support the welfare state as it is. I'd support a negative income tax (à la Friedman). I'm for universal healthcare and a school-voucher system.
Click to expand...

Do not rely on wiki. The problem with market failures is that they are not "fixed" by a state. And in most cases a state is formed within the failure. Take for example externalities, you have no problem with positive externalities but that is a market failure, because efficiency is what makes something not a "market" failure.

Massive state needed, which means more inequality, and of course the removal of "rights" or liberties randomly and arbitrarily.
 
scatt said:
I would choose the elimination of the state.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about this. Would you choose to eliminate any agency that enforces contracts or ownership rights, or that enforced laws against (say) murder, rape, or theft? If no, then in what meaningful sense are you choosing elimination of the state? If yes, then I think you misunderstand Rawls' experiment: the point is that you do not know what your position will be once things "get going." You could be in a very powerful position, or a very weak one. If the latter, and you've eliminated any agency that enforces ownership rights, contracts, or laws against violence, you will very likely be a victim in short order. As Hobbes points out, even if you are a very strong individual, you can be taken down by a temporary alliance of weak individuals.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I'm curious about this. Would you choose to eliminate any agency that enforces contracts or ownership rights, or that enforced laws against (say) murder, rape, or theft? If no, then in what meaningful sense are you choosing elimination of the state? If yes, then I think you misunderstand Rawls' experiment: the point is that you do not know what your position will be once things "get going." You could be in a very powerful position, or a very weak one. If the latter, and you've eliminated any agency that enforces ownership rights, contracts, or laws against violence, you will very likely be a victim in short order. As Hobbes points out, even if you are a very strong individual, you can be taken down by a temporary alliance of weak individuals.
Click to expand...

Contracts (agreement between humans) precedes the state. Ownership also precedes the state, and even the human race. And the answer is literally all state entities I would choose to have not exist. All of them.

Any argument that relies on the physical ability of someone is not to be taken seriously. Might makes "right" is not serious.
 
scatt said:
Contracts (agreement between humans) precedes the state. Ownership also precedes the state, and even the human race. And the answer is literally all state entities I would choose to have not exist. All of them.

Any argument that relies on the physical ability of someone is not to be taken seriously. Might makes "right" is not serious.
Click to expand...

Well, you're surely aware that many people attempt to escape contracts and also that people take property from others by force, kill, rape, etc. regardless of whether it is right or wrong to do so. The existence of "the state" certainly doesn't cause these things to occur, so eliminating the state won't eliminate those sorts of occurrences. As a matter of practical concern, and not entering into the question of what is right or wrong, how are contracts to be enforced? How are property rights to be enforced? How is justice to be served on those who murder, rape, steal, etc?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well, you're surely aware that many people attempt to escape contracts and also that people take property from others by force, kill, rape, etc. regardless of whether it is right or wrong to do so. The existence of "the state" certainly doesn't cause these things to occur, so eliminating the state won't eliminate those sorts of occurrences. As a matter of practical concern, and not entering into the question of what is right or wrong, how are contracts to be enforced? How are property rights to be enforced? How is justice to be served on those who murder, rape, steal, etc?
Click to expand...

Yep, and they do this with the state.

It would since those things are state activities.

Enforcement is might makes right arguments which are not to be taken seriously.

Justice is laughably subjective and not to be taken seriously.
 
scatt said:
Yep, and they do this with the state.

It would since those things are state activities.
Click to expand...

So, on your view, if there were no state, no one would murder another person? No one would disregard a contract which they had previously made? No one would steal from another person?

scatt said:
Enforcement is might makes right arguments which are not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean. Enforcement is a "might makes right" argument? It seems to me that enforcement is an action, not an argument.

scatt said:
Justice is laughably subjective and not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

So, behind the veil of ignorance, you would simply take your chances, and if you ended up being a weak person who was robbed, tortured, raped, and eventually killed by others, you would not think there is anything wrong with that?
 
ashurbanipal said:
So, on your view, if there were no state, no one would murder another person? No one would disregard a contract which they had previously made? No one would steal from another person?



I don't understand what you mean. Enforcement is a "might makes right" argument? It seems to me that enforcement is an action, not an argument.



So, behind the veil of ignorance, you would simply take your chances, and if you ended up being a weak person who was robbed, tortured, raped, and eventually killed by others, you would not think there is anything wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is what the state is --any person or group of people that regulate without consent.

The argument is might makes right and it is not to be taken seriously.

You are describing states so i would not approve. And remember banning arms is a good way to make sure your political darwinism is enacted -- the bigger will win because equalizers are banned.
 
scatt said:
Yeah, that is what the state is --any person or group of people that regulate without consent.
Click to expand...

Well, wait a minute--you're not all-powerful behind the veil of ignorance. You're just discussing, with the other people, what kind of society you will create. This you (and they) do without knowing your social position, your health, your abilities or talents, or any other advantage or disadvantage you might have once society gets started. If, for you, "the state" is any entity or group of people that regulate without consent, and murder, rape, theft, etc. are kinds of regulation (I'm not sure I get that, but that seems to be what you're saying), you need to explain how you're going to ban that--because people are going to do those things.

You cannot simply ban people from murdering someone, including you, and expect there to be no murders. It's a simple matter of fact that human beings will murder other human beings. You cannot simply ban people from not honoring contracts and expect it to stick--it's a simple matter of fact that people will try to get out of properly made contracts.

The question is what to do about it. So far, it appears your answer is "nothing."

scatt said:
The argument is might makes right and it is not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I don't know to which argument you refer. I've been talking about actual events that are likely to take place, without any attention to what is right or wrong. Rawls doesn't avoid talk of morality, exactly, but the thought experiment he suggests need not be formulated in such terms.

scatt said:
You are describing states so i would not approve. And remember banning arms is a good way to make sure your political darwinism is enacted -- the bigger will win because equalizers are banned.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Without some entity providing protections, it's possible that once you step out from behind the veil of ignorance, you could be a strapping young man with lots of physical power, but so dirt poor you couldn't afford to buy a weapon of any kind. Without some entity to enforce contracts or penalties for murder, you could be (say) hired to do a job by a tiny old little fellow, who, when the job is finished, shoots you to death rather than pay you. He reaps the benefit of your labor, and you not only don't get paid, you get killed.

These sorts of things happen as a matter of fact. The question, I repeat, is what we do about them.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
Well, wait a minute--you're not all-powerful behind the veil of ignorance. You're just discussing, with the other people, what kind of society you will create. This you (and they) do without knowing your social position, your health, your abilities or talents, or any other advantage or disadvantage you might have once society gets started. If, for you, "the state" is any entity or group of people that regulate without consent, and murder, rape, theft, etc. are kinds of regulation (I'm not sure I get that, but that seems to be what you're saying), you need to explain how you're going to ban that--because people are going to do those things.

You cannot simply ban people from murdering someone, including you, and expect there to be no murders. It's a simple matter of fact that human beings will murder other human beings. You cannot simply ban people from not honoring contracts and expect it to stick--it's a simple matter of fact that people will try to get out of properly made contracts.

The question is what to do about it.

I don't know to which argument you refer. I've been talking about actual events that are likely to take place, without any attention to what is right or wrong. Rawls doesn't avoid talk of morality, exactly, but the thought experiment he suggests need not be formulated in such terms.

Not necessarily. Without some entity providing protections, it's possible that once you step out from behind the veil of ignorance, you could be a strapping young man with lots of physical power, but so dirt poor you couldn't afford to buy a weapon of any kind. Without some entity to enforce contracts or penalties for murder, you could be (say) hired to do a job by a tiny old little fellow, who, when the job is finished, shoots you to death rather than pay you. He reaps the benefit of your labor, and you not only don't get paid, you get killed.
Click to expand...

I don't need to ban it. And I cannot ban it (and neither can any state).

The state not existing would remove it.

Again, the physical ability of someone is not an argument that is ever relevant. So what if a bigger person can become a state to another?

There is no protection. Regulations do not stop what they regulate. The argument that there needs to be state criminal or civil enforcement is silly, even within the state it is silly. Say for instance, you were to buy a pair of jeans at a store with a sign that says "100 percent money back guarantee." You then go home and the jeans do not look or fit the way you like, so you decide to take them back. When you take them back, if the store would refuse to give you your money back, would you sue? Most likely not. And yet the store will still take back the jeans. Why is that? Purely reputation. Not only will they lose you as a customer, you will tell all your friends (and enemies) not to shop there because they cheated you.
 
Scatt why did you participate in this thread? You didn't contribute anything and you've still failed to understand what, exactly, Rawls was arguing about.

Can you please respond in a line-by-line breakdown? It's hard reading your responses to lengthy, separate paragraphs when you simply type short lines not directed at anything specific in the text you're quoting.
 
scatt said:
I don't need to ban it. And I cannot ban it (and neither can any state).
Click to expand...

Well, I agree that no one can effectively ban it just by saying some words.

scatt said:
The state not existing would remove it.
Click to expand...

But this seems wholly false. It can only be true if you're using non-standard definitions...which you seem to be doing. So I don't care what you want to call the bonds of interaction, system of laws, power of enforcement, and social institutions that make up what most people call a state, but whatever that is, that's what we should be talking about. Getting rid of that doesn't get rid of all the bad and dishonorable things people do to each other.

scatt said:
Again, the physical ability of someone is not an argument that is ever relevant. So what if a bigger person can become a state to another?
Click to expand...

It's not relevant to anything? That seems preposterous. We're talking about matters of practical concern. In the absence of constraining forces, the strong will also sometimes be bad and prey on the weak. That is certainly relevant; it's one of the main problems for which we require some solution. When we are behind the veil of ignorance, this seems to be one of the most relevant facts that motivated discussion aimed at finding solutions.

scatt said:
There is no protection. Regulations do not stop what they regulate. The argument that there needs to be state criminal or civil enforcement is silly, even within the state it is silly.
Click to expand...

This is downright false. We catch murderers and lock them up. We don't thereby prevent the original murder, but we undoubtedly prevent some. We have enforcement mechanisms for contracts, whereby people who enter into agreements are forced to comply with their word. It's not perfectly successful, but it does prevent some people from taking undue advantage of others.

scatt said:
Say for instance, you were to buy a pair of jeans at a store with a sign that says "100 percent money back guarantee." You then go home and the jeans do not look or fit the way you like, so you decide to take them back. When you take them back, if the store would refuse to give you your money back, would you sue? Most likely not. And yet the store will still take back the jeans. Why is that? Purely reputation. Not only will they lose you as a customer, you will tell all your friends (and enemies) not to shop there because they cheated you.
Click to expand...

OK. So what? This sort of situation doesn't cover every kind of unfairness.

I have to echo Aekos' sentiments. I'm not sure I fully understand the relevance of what you're posting. For one thing, you've spent some time talking about regulation to which all parties do not give consent. It's been a long time since I read Rawls' A Theory of Justice, but those behind the veil of ignorance will generally agree to a certain kind of society and certain principles that guide it.
 
ashurbanipal said:
But this seems wholly false. It can only be true if you're using non-standard definitions...which you seem to be doing. So I don't care what you want to call the bonds of interaction, system of laws, power of enforcement, and social institutions that make up what most people call a state, but whatever that is, that's what we should be talking about. Getting rid of that doesn't get rid of all the bad and dishonorable things people do to each other.

It's not relevant to anything? That seems preposterous. We're talking about matters of practical concern. In the absence of constraining forces, the strong will also sometimes be bad and prey on the weak. That is certainly relevant; it's one of the main problems for which we require some solution. When we are behind the veil of ignorance, this seems to be one of the most relevant facts that motivated discussion aimed at finding solutions.

This is downright false. We catch murderers and lock them up. We don't thereby prevent the original murder, but we undoubtedly prevent some. We have enforcement mechanisms for contracts, whereby people who enter into agreements are forced to comply with their word. It's not perfectly successful, but it does prevent some people from taking undue advantage of others.

OK. So what? This sort of situation doesn't cover every kind of unfairness.
Click to expand...

The state has many definitions. Some people include words like "consent" to describe a state, which is absurd. Also, those things are what a state is, so it works.

You catch murderers after they murder. That is not protection, nor are they stopped from further murder while locked up. Most contracts which are made by shopping for food, clothing, etc, use absolutely no government or the government legal system.

And neither does the state regulation. If your complaint is my scenario does not cover everything, my only needed response is your scenario does not either.
 
scatt said:
The state has many definitions. Some people include words like "consent" to describe a state, which is absurd. Also, those things are what a state is, so it works.
Click to expand...

You're confusing two separate strands in my post, and the result is itself confusing. I have no idea what this even means.

scatt said:
You catch murderers after they murder.
Click to expand...

Didn't I say something like that?

scatt said:
That is not protection, nor are they stopped from further murder while locked up.
Click to expand...

You mean, is it possible for one person to kill another in prison? Sure. It's not possible for a person who is locked up to break into someone's home and kill a family, for instance. Or perhaps it's better to say that the likelihood of someone who is locked up for murder ever doing that again is very much less than if they just remain loose. And it's a lot harder to kill someone in prison than out.

scatt said:
Most contracts which are made by shopping for food, clothing, etc, use absolutely no government or the government legal system.
Click to expand...

So what?

scatt said:
And neither does the state regulation. If your complaint is my scenario does not cover everything, my only needed response is your scenario does not either.
Click to expand...

Your scenario doesn't cover everything by virtue of the fact that it isn't isomorphic with all of reality, and lacks features that respond to actual events that happen.

I have no idea why you'd say that my scenario doesn't cover everything, especially since I haven't posed a scenario.

Furthermore, you've been letting points go left and right. You basically don't have a case at this point that I can discern.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Didn't I say something like that?

You mean, is it possible for one person to kill another in prison? Sure. It's not possible for a person who is locked up to break into someone's home and kill a family, for instance. Or perhaps it's better to say that the likelihood of someone who is locked up for murder ever doing that again is very much less than if they just remain loose. And it's a lot harder to kill someone in prison than out.

So what?

Your scenario doesn't cover everything by virtue of the fact that it isn't isomorphic with all of reality, and lacks features that respond to actual events that happen.

I have no idea why you'd say that my scenario doesn't cover everything, especially since I haven't posed a scenario.
Click to expand...

You would have to, and you therefore find it unimportant.

Not just possible, it literally happens. People literally break out of prison and do just that.

Then so what to you. Derp.

"Reality" claimed within an argument rarely is. If you want me to answer a question based not upon logic, but upon what would you do if the logic does not matter, then ask. Just make sure you tell me you are asking with the premise that the state must exist, and I can respond with no my view, but my view from that premise.

Your scenario does not relate to "reality"?
 
scatt said:
You would have to, and you therefore find it unimportant.
Click to expand...

Do you know how to properly quote a post? I have no idea what this refers to.

scatt said:
Not just possible, it literally happens. People literally break out of prison and do just that.
Click to expand...

Yes; no one is arguing otherwise. However, as I said in my last post, it's a lot more difficult for someone who is locked up to do that, as compared to someone who is free. So, to put this back in context, this is one example of a regulation that is effective.

scatt said:
Then so what to you. Derp.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking "so what?" rhetorically. I genuinely don't see why the fact that most day-to-day contracts don't require the intervention of government for enforcement has anything to do with the issue at hand. Some contracts do require intervention. Those are the ones that are important.

scatt said:
"Reality" claimed within an argument rarely is.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means.

scatt said:
If you want me to answer a question based not upon logic, but upon what would you do if the logic does not matter, then ask.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means either.

scatt said:
Just make sure you tell me you are asking with the premise that the state must exist, and I can respond with no my view, but my view from that premise.
Click to expand...

I don't think states must exist. But I think it's quite foolish to wish they didn't.

scatt said:
Your scenario does not relate to "reality"?
Click to expand...

What? Why are you asking this? What scenario are you talking about?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yes; no one is arguing otherwise. However, as I said in my last post, it's a lot more difficult for someone who is locked up to do that, as compared to someone who is free. So, to put this back in context, this is one example of a regulation that is effective.

I wasn't asking "so what?" rhetorically. I genuinely don't see why the fact that most day-to-day contracts don't require the intervention of government for enforcement has anything to do with the issue at hand. Some contracts do require intervention. Those are the ones that are important.

I don't think states must exist. But I think it's quite foolish to wish they didn't.
Click to expand...

So not even outcome is your argument but just odds? It is not effective, it specifically fails, and has failed numerous times.

But the other ones do not require a state, they are just dealt with in the state because the state currently exists. And even though they exist they are ignored a vast majority of the time.

Why is that?
 
scatt said:
So not even outcome is your argument but just odds? It is not effective, it specifically fails, and has failed numerous times.
Click to expand...

Of course it's effective. If you were in a room with two doors, and you were assured that if you walked through one there was a 50% chance you would die, and through the other, a .0005% chance, and if you stay, a 100% chance, which door would you choose?

scatt said:
But the other ones do not require a state, they are just dealt with in the state because the state currently exists. And even though they exist they are ignored a vast majority of the time.

Why is that?
Click to expand...

Heck if I know. Why does it matter? Also, why didn't you clarify your previous post and answer my questions?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Of course it's effective. If you were in a room with two doors, and you were assured that if you walked through one there was a 50% chance you would die, and through the other, a .0005% chance, and if you stay, a 100% chance, which door would you choose?

Heck if I know. Why does it matter? Also, why didn't you clarify your previous post and answer my questions?
Click to expand...

You could die in all three.

Your questions, which you are randomly bringing up will need to include some context as to why you cannot understand. What part if hard for you ("all of it" will not be responded to).
 
scatt said:
You could die in all three.
Click to expand...

Of course you could, but that's not what I asked.

Anyway, at this point, I don't have any fecking clue what you're on about. You don't answer my questions, don't quote posts properly, and what you write doesn't follow any kind of logical order. I'm going to stop responding.

G'day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom