I'm posting my response to Ben's post here, because the interface is so much nicer that the little comment box...I wonder if that can be changed somewhere..
Anyway, I guess my first response to Ben's post is that the problem only arises if you accept the liberalist position that everyone does (or should) start from an equal position. Rawls does this in his theory of Justice and its exactly what bothers me about it: the assumption that to get an ideal system of justice everyone has to start at the same point. Not only does this render his theory practically usless (until he bends it to fit the real world later in Law of Peoples), the same problem lies at the base of all those philosophers' theories. If you start from an obviously idealized position its pretty hard to get back to reality.
Having said that, I don't think that a concept of political liberalism hinges on that concept. I would emphasize it as the goal of liberalism to acheive parity of opprotunity for everyone, and the acceptance of a paternalist state that limits our freedoms to try and acheive that goal. I think you can still retain a good chunk of liberalist theory if we could just accept that they start in the wrong place, but end up with the "right" (in my liberal relativist nihilist opinion) kinds of ideas about how government should work in relation to people and personal liberties.
As to comment format, the alternatives are a pop-up window or a separate page where you no longer see the original post. I prefer this, but you can change it if you want.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that we can have a liberal system with people starting with different advantages, which to me sounds incompatible with "parity of opportunity".
One of the liberal means to maintain some kind of stability and decentralization is to balance interests and powers against each other. Constitutionally, this is the system of checks and balances; in a market, it's competition. So consider a market where a minority of firms have a disproportionate share of market power; i.e. they can manipulate prices and crowd the little guys out. An oligopoly arises, and the smaller entrepreneurs go bust. Now think of this on the level of individuals. If you have some inherent advantage at getting into higher education, and the system values higher education, I lose not only my fair shot, but without that fair shot, I'm probably going to lose my incentive to continue participating. Why play if the deck is stacked against me? Refusing to participate could take the form of becoming disenchanted and dropping out, as many do, or it could inspire me to try to smash the system, as many do.
I realize that the image is pretty abstract and stylized, but it has empirical correlates. Why are the dalits in India getting all uppity? Why was Obama's election more significant than Clinton's? Why is affirmative action even conscionable? I'll buy (and advocate!) that nobody should be guaranteed equal outcomes, but I see equal starting points to be a prerequisite for most of what follows.
P.S. This is fun already.
ReplyDelete