John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Leninist
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:13 am

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by Leninist » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:46 am

ForgedinHell wrote: Inequality is a non-issue.
What is a non-issue?
ForgedinHell wrote:Should we scar the faces of all the good-looking people to make the ugly people, especially me, feel better?
This doesn't make sense. Wealth is not something that is a natural quality, it shifts depending on the society. Also, it's not just to make you feel better, it's to make many people feel better.
ForgedinHell wrote:It is simply based on jealousy, nothing more. It's time to expose this fallacy for what it is. Crap.
This is a non sequitur. Equality is not just based on jealousy, it can have many other implications, e.g. Oppression and alienation.
ForgedinHell wrote:What does wealth inequality have to do with equal treatment before the law?
The law can be influenced and maintained by laws. Our society has to bail out banks to keep capitalism, no matter what the banks do they always need to be bailed out - our society is a capitalistic one. The justice, laws and the enforcement of laws is blind when it is dependent.
ForgedinHell wrote:That's an argument against poverty, not inequality. The two are distinct issues. And the spending of the super-rich? Unless the super-rich put their money under a mattress, it is being spent somewhere and creating income for someone.
Poverty is an inequality if society can change to lessen poverty but doesn't. Property is just one of these issues. It is assumed that anyone can just buy land, however, as a right to own land, it doesn't have to be sold. This can be seen especially bad when a minority owns everything and the majority owns very little - it becomes an equality issue when society can divide itself unnecessarily.
ForgedinHell wrote:If Bill gates wanted to buy my house to throw me out in the cold, he couldn't do it. If one has a government that protects civil liberties, then it doesn't matter how wealthy someone is compared to another, they cannot bully the other around.
Actually he can. He has a massive amount of resources at his disposal, he'll try do it legally with many lawyers, he can buy out all the businesses then shut them down so it's harder for you to live. He can do it illegally and harass you buy paying these sorts of people or even send in people to end the job. Clearly, money has its advantages.

You honestly should change your avatar as Spinoza thought very differently from you.
"Spinoza takes it as axiomatic that the state ought to do those things that maximize the welfare of the people as a whole" - plato.standford.edu

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by ForgedinHell » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:41 pm

Leninist wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote: Inequality is a non-issue.
What is a non-issue?
ForgedinHell wrote:Should we scar the faces of all the good-looking people to make the ugly people, especially me, feel better?
This doesn't make sense. Wealth is not something that is a natural quality, it shifts depending on the society. Also, it's not just to make you feel better, it's to make many people feel better.
ForgedinHell wrote:It is simply based on jealousy, nothing more. It's time to expose this fallacy for what it is. Crap.
This is a non sequitur. Equality is not just based on jealousy, it can have many other implications, e.g. Oppression and alienation.
ForgedinHell wrote:What does wealth inequality have to do with equal treatment before the law?
The law can be influenced and maintained by laws. Our society has to bail out banks to keep capitalism, no matter what the banks do they always need to be bailed out - our society is a capitalistic one. The justice, laws and the enforcement of laws is blind when it is dependent.
ForgedinHell wrote:That's an argument against poverty, not inequality. The two are distinct issues. And the spending of the super-rich? Unless the super-rich put their money under a mattress, it is being spent somewhere and creating income for someone.
Poverty is an inequality if society can change to lessen poverty but doesn't. Property is just one of these issues. It is assumed that anyone can just buy land, however, as a right to own land, it doesn't have to be sold. This can be seen especially bad when a minority owns everything and the majority owns very little - it becomes an equality issue when society can divide itself unnecessarily.
ForgedinHell wrote:If Bill gates wanted to buy my house to throw me out in the cold, he couldn't do it. If one has a government that protects civil liberties, then it doesn't matter how wealthy someone is compared to another, they cannot bully the other around.
Actually he can. He has a massive amount of resources at his disposal, he'll try do it legally with many lawyers, he can buy out all the businesses then shut them down so it's harder for you to live. He can do it illegally and harass you buy paying these sorts of people or even send in people to end the job. Clearly, money has its advantages.

You honestly should change your avatar as Spinoza thought very differently from you.
"Spinoza takes it as axiomatic that the state ought to do those things that maximize the welfare of the people as a whole" - plato.standford.edu
You must live in some alternate fantasy universe. No, Bill Gates couldn't buy my home. The idea is laughable. He can't force me to do anything, despite all of his money. And you are assuming that you know what will "maximize the eelfare of the people as a whole" where you have no friggin clue.

LukeS
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:03 pm

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by LukeS » Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:36 pm

If inequality is a non issue than that implies relative amounts of wealth are unimportant. So would anyone give me their life savings if that is believed to be true. Of course wealth matters to people, and therefore (as relative wealth determineds purchacing power power) so does inequality.

User avatar
Leninist
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:13 am

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by Leninist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:56 pm

ForgedinHell wrote:No, Bill Gates couldn't buy my home. The idea is laughable. He can't force me to do anything, despite all of his money.
You can't be this naive? Mass wealth increases the power you have over society and how you can influence it.
ForgedinHell wrote:And you are assuming that you know what will "maximize the eelfare of the people as a whole" where you have no friggin clue.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about. I thought the welfare-state was primarily focused around egalitarian and meritocratic normative moral spheres. This is an argument of inequality which is tied into the welfare-state.

Lets not turn this into kindergarten philosophy where you end up attack my character, hmm?

reasonvemotion
Posts: 1649
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by reasonvemotion » Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:27 am

I see it this way. The average Joe Blow, does not hanker after Bill Gate's type wealth, or even some one who is considered a multi millionaire. The average man wants "full" time employment, lower taxation, a roof over his head and food on the table.

The wealthy man has money enough to employ financial advisors, who can take care of his wealth, although even then, the owner of that wealth takes a healthy interest in its "expansion", as most very wealthy have the "love" of money, hence the drive to increase their wealth. Financial structures in most countries are geared to cater to the needs of the wealthy. Each to his own. The problem only arises, as I see it, when it is to the exclusion of the average man being able to obtain the basic rights and those being all the above, Today, capitalsm is or has taken over and serious problems now arise that are blocking man's ability to achieve his fundamental right, to survive with dignity. Poverty has become a common ailment and overlooked by others who are struggling to maintain a level of economic survival. It is a society of "dog eat dog". How long can this continue? Whenever there is a large inequality, the balance is sure to topple over, sooner or later. Perhaps another war will be used to correct this, by those "who we must obey".

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by ForgedinHell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:23 am

reasonvemotion wrote:I see it this way. The average Joe Blow, does not hanker after Bill Gate's type wealth, or even some one who is considered a multi millionaire. The average man wants "full" time employment, lower taxation, a roof over his head and food on the table.

The wealthy man has money enough to employ financial advisors, who can take care of his wealth, although even then, the owner of that wealth takes a healthy interest in its "expansion", as most very wealthy have the "love" of money, hence the drive to increase their wealth. Financial structures in most countries are geared to cater to the needs of the wealthy. Each to his own. The problem only arises, as I see it, when it is to the exclusion of the average man being able to obtain the basic rights and those being all the above, Today, capitalsm is or has taken over and serious problems now arise that are blocking man's ability to achieve his fundamental right, to survive with dignity. Poverty has become a common ailment and overlooked by others who are struggling to maintain a level of economic survival. It is a society of "dog eat dog". How long can this continue? Whenever there is a large inequality, the balance is sure to topple over, sooner or later. Perhaps another war will be used to correct this, by those "who we must obey".
Since capitalism has created more wealth, for more people, in the entire history of the planet, you are contradicting yourself.

User avatar
Leninist
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:13 am

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by Leninist » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:36 am

ForgedinHell wrote: Since capitalism has created more wealth, for more people, in the entire history of the planet, you are contradicting yourself.
This is incorrect. It is the labourer that creates the wealth that necessarily comes from nature. Capitalism is a mode of production which consequently influences and motivates the worker.
No one denies the advantages of capitalism and how it brought innovation, industrialization and efficiency to production.

Capitalism doesn't create wealth, it motivates the worker to create wealth.

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by ForgedinHell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:22 am

Leninist wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote: Since capitalism has created more wealth, for more people, in the entire history of the planet, you are contradicting yourself.
This is incorrect. It is the labourer that creates the wealth that necessarily comes from nature. Capitalism is a mode of production which consequently influences and motivates the worker.
No one denies the advantages of capitalism and how it brought innovation, industrialization and efficiency to production.

Capitalism doesn't create wealth, it motivates the worker to create wealth.
The laborer? Okay then, what happens if a laborer works his ass off digging a hole, and then fills it up again, then digs the hole back up, and fills it in again, and he does this, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year? The worker produces nothing of value. That proves the laborer does not create value. Value is created by intelligently producing services and goods people want to buy. It takes intellect, investment, and labor to achieve this. A worker just working acheives nothing.

Capitalism creates wealth.

User avatar
Leninist
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:13 am

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by Leninist » Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:55 am

ForgedinHell wrote: The laborer? Okay then, what happens if a laborer works his ass off digging a hole, and then fills it up again, then digs the hole back up, and fills it in again, and he does this, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year?
This example makes no sense. If everyone did this then we'd never do anything for our survival. Capitalism is necessary for our survival? Without capitalism we'd just dig holes all day?
ForgedinHell wrote:Value is created by intelligently producing services and goods people want to buy. It takes intellect, investment, and labor to achieve this. A worker just working acheives nothing.
P1: Value is created by intelligently producing services and goods people want to buy.
P2: A worker just working acheives nothing.
C: It takes intellect, investment, and labor to achieve this.(value)?

Logically, these aren't valid even if they were correct.

P1. I thought value had was created subjectively and objectively.Perhaps you could give your definition of value?
P2. Indeed, though, you are already assuming, (as I previously stated) that a person is absolutely useless without some control.
C: You have already presupposed capitalism always existed using words like investment, perhaps you could explain what you mean? You also assume that the worker has no intellect.
ForgedinHell wrote:Capitalism creates wealth.
You are personifying capitalism.
Capitalism is an ideology which concerns the distribution and trade of wealth.
Capitalism doesn't create wealth. The distinction might not seem important, however, in philosophy, they are.
Last edited by Leninist on Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by ForgedinHell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:49 pm

Leninist wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote: The laborer? Okay then, what happens if a laborer works his ass off digging a hole, and then fills it up again, then digs the hole back up, and fills it in again, and he does this, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year?
This example makes no sense. If everyone did this then we'd never do anything for our survival. Capitalism is necessary for our survival? Without capitalism we'd just dig holes all day?
ForgedinHell wrote:Value is created by intelligently producing services and goods people want to buy. It takes intellect, investment, and labor to achieve this. A worker just working acheives nothing.
P1: Value is created by intelligently producing services and goods people want to buy.
P2: A worker just working acheives nothing.
C: It takes intellect, investment, and labor to achieve this.(value)?

Logically, these aren't valid even if they were correct.

P1. I thought value had was created subjectively and objectively.Perhaps you could give your definition of value?
P2. Indeed, though, you are already assuming, (as I previously stated) that a person is absolutely useless without some control.
C: You have already presupposed capitalism always existed using words like investment, perhaps you could explain what you mean? You also assume that the worker has no intellect.
ForgedinHell wrote:Capitalism creates wealth.
You are personifying capitalism.
Capitalism is an ideology which concerns the distribution and trade of wealth.
Capitalism doesn't create wealth. The distinction might not seem important, however, in philosophy, they are.
No, what I did was debunked your claim that value comes from the worker. That was your claim, your assertion, remember? Well, if true, then why doesn't a laborer just randomly doing labor create value? Nothing else should be needed but a laborer if the laborer is the source of value. It's just not true. You can call my argument "illogical" all you want, but it did debunk your claim, and I have seen nothing in your argument to prove your claim.

Also, if capital did not help to create wealth, then why does anyone ever bother to take out a business loan? Sell bonds to raise capital? See stock to raise capital? All of these people, according to you, are needlessly taking on expenses. The real reason they borrow money, pay to those who invest in their projects some of the profits, is because capital is needed to get a business going, and no one will invest, apart from family members or friends or fools, without getting some return on their money. Otherwise, the person making the investment needlessly places her money at risk.

Capitalism works. It's amazing to me that so many think that socialism and disruption of the market forces will bring about some paradise when all it does is cause bankruptcy.

User avatar
Leninist
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:13 am

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by Leninist » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:53 pm

ForgedinHell wrote: No, what I did was debunked your claim that value comes from the worker That was your claim, your assertion, remember?
I said wealth comes from the labourer which comes from nature.
ForgedinHell wrote:Well, if true, then why doesn't a laborer just randomly doing labor create value? Nothing else should be needed but a laborer if the laborer is the source of value. It's just not true. You can call my argument "illogical" all you want, but it did debunk your claim, and I have seen nothing in your argument to prove your claim.
Let's try not get confused with value and wealth. It makes more sense than saying wealth is created by an ideology. Your reasoning is thus: It is not the medical surgeon that saved the patients life during surgery, it was the medical staffs rules and regulations of the hospital.
ForgedinHell wrote:Also, if capital did not help to create wealth,
Capitalism is an ideology, it doesn't literally create wealth. We really need to be clear on this.
ForgedinHell wrote:then why does anyone ever bother to take out a business loan? Sell bonds to raise capital? See stock to raise capital? All of these people, according to you, are needlessly taking on expenses.
I said earlier that the capitalistic ideology is one of trade and the distribution of wealth.
ForgedinHell wrote:The real reason they borrow money, pay to those who invest in their projects some of the profits, is because capital is needed to get a business going, and no one will invest, apart from family members or friends or fools, without getting some return on their money. Otherwise, the person making the investment needlessly places her money at risk.
Exactly, capitalism is centrally about profit, surplus value.
ForgedinHell wrote:Capitalism works. It's amazing to me that so many think that socialism and disruption of the market forces will bring about some paradise when all it does is cause bankruptcy.
I never said capitalism doesn't work. Capitalism is working exactly the way it should. However, for it to continue it still needs the government intervention or monopolies are created. Capitalism requires competition, no? Monopolies starve out any middleman entrepreneur enterprises and businesses.

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by ForgedinHell » Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:19 pm

Leninist wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote: No, what I did was debunked your claim that value comes from the worker That was your claim, your assertion, remember?
I said wealth comes from the labourer which comes from nature.
ForgedinHell wrote:Well, if true, then why doesn't a laborer just randomly doing labor create value? Nothing else should be needed but a laborer if the laborer is the source of value. It's just not true. You can call my argument "illogical" all you want, but it did debunk your claim, and I have seen nothing in your argument to prove your claim.
Let's try not get confused with value and wealth. It makes more sense than saying wealth is created by an ideology. Your reasoning is thus: It is not the medical surgeon that saved the patients life during surgery, it was the medical staffs rules and regulations of the hospital.
ForgedinHell wrote:Also, if capital did not help to create wealth,
Capitalism is an ideology, it doesn't literally create wealth. We really need to be clear on this.
ForgedinHell wrote:then why does anyone ever bother to take out a business loan? Sell bonds to raise capital? See stock to raise capital? All of these people, according to you, are needlessly taking on expenses.
I said earlier that the capitalistic ideology is one of trade and the distribution of wealth.
ForgedinHell wrote:The real reason they borrow money, pay to those who invest in their projects some of the profits, is because capital is needed to get a business going, and no one will invest, apart from family members or friends or fools, without getting some return on their money. Otherwise, the person making the investment needlessly places her money at risk.
Exactly, capitalism is centrally about profit, surplus value.
ForgedinHell wrote:Capitalism works. It's amazing to me that so many think that socialism and disruption of the market forces will bring about some paradise when all it does is cause bankruptcy.
I never said capitalism doesn't work. Capitalism is working exactly the way it should. However, for it to continue it still needs the government intervention or monopolies are created. Capitalism requires competition, no? Monopolies starve out any middleman entrepreneur enterprises and businesses.
Monopolies are really hard to come by, and are no where near the problem some people claim them to be. And your pseudoscience about value versus wealth does not get you anywhere. It is the striving for profits that result in businesses efficiently using resources to produce goods and services. Those institutions, like the government, who don't need to earn pofits to survive, are typically highly inefficient and wasteful.

User avatar
Leninist
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:13 am

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by Leninist » Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:30 pm

ForgedinHell wrote:Monopolies are really hard to come by, and are no where near the problem some people claim them to be.
Maybe because there are laws that prevent monopolies from manifesting?
ForgedinHell wrote:And your pseudoscience about value versus wealth does not get you anywhere.
I didn't know we were talking about pseudo-science. I know what pseudo-science is and it is about theories that lack scientific method. I could go on but I'm curious if you know philosophically, what pseudo-science is?
Anyway, I digressed.

Wealth has an inherent value when there is a discourse on wealth. When we talk about the value of something then there is a discussion between its value. For instance, if I say I am a wealthy man, many people would think that I am rich. When I say, my life has value then then the argument shifts away from material possessions - it is more ambiguous.
ForgedinHell wrote:It is the striving for profits that result in businesses efficiently using resources to produce goods and services.
Yes, I agree.
ForgedinHell wrote:Those institutions, like the government, who don't need to earn pofits to survive, are typically highly inefficient and wasteful.
Lets assume you are correct, then, how would you manage a society? And, what do you consider a wasteful action?

User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by ForgedinHell » Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:28 am

Leninist wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:Monopolies are really hard to come by, and are no where near the problem some people claim them to be.
Maybe because there are laws that prevent monopolies from manifesting?
ForgedinHell wrote:And your pseudoscience about value versus wealth does not get you anywhere.
I didn't know we were talking about pseudo-science. I know what pseudo-science is and it is about theories that lack scientific method. I could go on but I'm curious if you know philosophically, what pseudo-science is?
Anyway, I digressed.

Wealth has an inherent value when there is a discourse on wealth. When we talk about the value of something then there is a discussion between its value. For instance, if I say I am a wealthy man, many people would think that I am rich. When I say, my life has value then then the argument shifts away from material possessions - it is more ambiguous.
ForgedinHell wrote:It is the striving for profits that result in businesses efficiently using resources to produce goods and services.
Yes, I agree.
ForgedinHell wrote:Those institutions, like the government, who don't need to earn pofits to survive, are typically highly inefficient and wasteful.
Lets assume you are correct, then, how would you manage a society? And, what do you consider a wasteful action?
I would largely let the people manage themselves. Unless something can truly be shown to be a public good, then it should not be provided by the government.

User avatar
Leninist
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:13 am

Re: John Rawls, the veil of ignorance and American attitudes

Post by Leninist » Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:31 am

ForgedinHell wrote:I would largely let the people manage themselves. Unless something can truly be shown to be a public good,
Lets have a hypothetical situation. Suppose most of the population, say, 80%, considers their lives to be unequal by default. Most of the land is owned by the 20% of the population and most of the business share-holders have vast amounts of money - the interest goes to them.

To what end does it become a public good? Slavery is a form of inequality, slaves are never viewed or treated as equals.
Many people who live at the bottom of society will never achieve a quality of life that the rich do. And, it is not because they do not work, or are lazy; many people work for hours on ends and get very little. Even people who are intellectuals cannot reach a class that the extreme rich have reached(Though their lives are most likely better of).

So, even if someone is simple minded, or intelligent, there is still a divide between the quality of life.
The question I put to you is, when does it become a "public concern"?
ForgedinHell wrote:then it should not be provided by the government.
Then are you in favour of revolutions?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest