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.
16 July 2009
The Elephant in the Liberal Salon, or All Who Were Created How?
The best definition of liberalism I can think of says that it's the disposition to assume that humans need and deserve as much freedom in their personal affairs as possible, and to ask what kinds of constraints are necessary to preserve that freedom. A sheep in a pen full of wolves isn't "free" in any meaningful sense, so some measures, like free education, free healthcare, a justice system and defence establishment are necessary to make sure that everyone has a fair shot at structuring their own lives as they see fit. This is list is illustrative, not necessarily comprehensive.
A big assumption here is that everybody starts off with equal means. To the extent that individuals' success or failure rests on their own decisions, the system is fair. You bet on a long shot and lose, it's your own fault; you play it safe and eke by, good for you; you strike it rich (whatever "rich" might mean contextually), well done! This system works really well so long as we can work with abstract assumptions about "human nature" in the style of the greats, like Kant, Smith, Hume, Mill, &c. For lack of knowledge how people are, we make an educated guess and extrapolate. The liberal idea would encounter serious trouble, though, if we had reason to believe that we don't all start on a level playing field, that the deck is systematically stacked in favour of some, that some of us are sheep and the rest are wolves.
There is trouble on the horizon. There was a piece in Slate a while back talking about genetic differences on IQ test results, and Steven Pinker has made a similar and more informed argument on similar lines. Some of arguments out there paint race as a big factor, but depending on your definition of race (and there are several ), I'm mixed race, so I don't have a stake in how that game, nor do I really want one. But it doesn't necessarily have to be about race at all. We've all interacted with people who just didn't seem to be able to keep up or who seemed to do effortlessly what we could only do with considerable toil. Our understanding of liberalism will work so long as the inherently disadvantaged or privileged are just marginal quantities. Most developed countries can deal fairly well with their own mentally handicapped. It would also be fine if everyone had a valuable skill. Modern service economies, which is the direction everybody seems to be moving, value only certain types of skills, and it seems that these might not be randomly distributed nor that there is a huge hump of mediocrity with a few high fliers and knuckle-draggers on either end. Rather, it seems that people are spread out in terms of intellectual ability, the distribution might depend on certain predictable factors, and intellectual ability seems to count extra relative to other abilities, at least in any country I'd want to live in.
Given that this could be the case, liberals have a lot of soul searching to do. The first big question is: does this represent a threat to the liberal way of doing things? If no, how can society be considered fair (without too much sophistry)? If yes, can liberalism or the system be reconfigured to deal with it? I mean, genetic engineering should make this a technical problem, provided everyone has equal access to improvements (note: these improvements would probably have to be chosen prenatally, so you'd be stuck with your parents' choice, like your name - is that any more liberal?). If everyone were engineered to have similar qualities, what could we still consider meritorious? Did you really earn it if you were designed from (before) birth to achieve it? If the status quo remains, the question of merit remains too, and it circles back to affirmative action-type arguments. Is a runner-up actually more deserving than the winner because the winner had inherently better odds of winning?
Without wanting to anticipate any easy answers, I'd like to get the debate rolling.
A big assumption here is that everybody starts off with equal means. To the extent that individuals' success or failure rests on their own decisions, the system is fair. You bet on a long shot and lose, it's your own fault; you play it safe and eke by, good for you; you strike it rich (whatever "rich" might mean contextually), well done! This system works really well so long as we can work with abstract assumptions about "human nature" in the style of the greats, like Kant, Smith, Hume, Mill, &c. For lack of knowledge how people are, we make an educated guess and extrapolate. The liberal idea would encounter serious trouble, though, if we had reason to believe that we don't all start on a level playing field, that the deck is systematically stacked in favour of some, that some of us are sheep and the rest are wolves.
There is trouble on the horizon. There was a piece in Slate a while back talking about genetic differences on IQ test results, and Steven Pinker has made a similar and more informed argument on similar lines. Some of arguments out there paint race as a big factor, but depending on your definition of race (and there are several ), I'm mixed race, so I don't have a stake in how that game, nor do I really want one. But it doesn't necessarily have to be about race at all. We've all interacted with people who just didn't seem to be able to keep up or who seemed to do effortlessly what we could only do with considerable toil. Our understanding of liberalism will work so long as the inherently disadvantaged or privileged are just marginal quantities. Most developed countries can deal fairly well with their own mentally handicapped. It would also be fine if everyone had a valuable skill. Modern service economies, which is the direction everybody seems to be moving, value only certain types of skills, and it seems that these might not be randomly distributed nor that there is a huge hump of mediocrity with a few high fliers and knuckle-draggers on either end. Rather, it seems that people are spread out in terms of intellectual ability, the distribution might depend on certain predictable factors, and intellectual ability seems to count extra relative to other abilities, at least in any country I'd want to live in.
Given that this could be the case, liberals have a lot of soul searching to do. The first big question is: does this represent a threat to the liberal way of doing things? If no, how can society be considered fair (without too much sophistry)? If yes, can liberalism or the system be reconfigured to deal with it? I mean, genetic engineering should make this a technical problem, provided everyone has equal access to improvements (note: these improvements would probably have to be chosen prenatally, so you'd be stuck with your parents' choice, like your name - is that any more liberal?). If everyone were engineered to have similar qualities, what could we still consider meritorious? Did you really earn it if you were designed from (before) birth to achieve it? If the status quo remains, the question of merit remains too, and it circles back to affirmative action-type arguments. Is a runner-up actually more deserving than the winner because the winner had inherently better odds of winning?
Without wanting to anticipate any easy answers, I'd like to get the debate rolling.
First Question
Since Ben and I have talked about Mathew Yglesias a bit and referenced him in the e-mail chain that led to this blog, I thought I should link something of him to get a bit of discussion going:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/ben-nelson-attributes-his-zeal-for-defending-the-interests-of-rich-people-to-the-public-at-large.php
He discuses one of the problems of our government and more practically as one of the major obstacles of getting Obama's reforms passed: the lazyness and general inertia of senators in particular to get off their asses. Yglesias picks on conservative demoracts in particular, but I think the same thing could be said for all moderates, even the republicans. Surely there are some republicans that would support health care reform in some way, but the all at like the probelm is so damn hard and huge so they never begin anything.
Anyway, i guess the question is, how can we change this aspect of the US political system? I would venture to sy that this sort of inertia (for lack of a better word) is intrinsic in many governments, but I'll leave that kind of statement to the political scientists. Are there practical measures to be taken to minimize this sort of behaviour? Is it even undesirable for the government to be like this sometimes
(hopefully not all the time, right?)?
out..
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/ben-nelson-attributes-his-zeal-for-defending-the-interests-of-rich-people-to-the-public-at-large.php
He discuses one of the problems of our government and more practically as one of the major obstacles of getting Obama's reforms passed: the lazyness and general inertia of senators in particular to get off their asses. Yglesias picks on conservative demoracts in particular, but I think the same thing could be said for all moderates, even the republicans. Surely there are some republicans that would support health care reform in some way, but the all at like the probelm is so damn hard and huge so they never begin anything.
Anyway, i guess the question is, how can we change this aspect of the US political system? I would venture to sy that this sort of inertia (for lack of a better word) is intrinsic in many governments, but I'll leave that kind of statement to the political scientists. Are there practical measures to be taken to minimize this sort of behaviour? Is it even undesirable for the government to be like this sometimes
(hopefully not all the time, right?)?
out..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)