/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

That fucking veil of ignorance argument. That motherfucking "veil of ignorance" argument. I feel like if there's one thing that throws people off from the notions of monarchy and/or aristocracy it is that. What do you have to say about it OP?

>>1159

>What do you have to say about it OP?

I doubt anyone's actually convinced by it. They're just glad it exists, so they can tell themselves that their social democratic faggotry is based on an actual philosophy and not just on envy. It's one more theory that's convincing if you want to be convinced. I think it's significant that for all the talk of how brilliant Rawls is, his theory remains obscure. Marxists are trash, but they cannot shut up about Marx' theories. Same with objectivists and Rand, or ancaps and Rothbard. This doesn't prove much in itself, but it's curious, and I think it's that way because no one actually likes Rawls' ideas all that much.

I think there's two major reasons why his argument falls apart. One, it's one big petitio principii. Among other things, Rawls must assume away rational ethics; he must assume away that there could be a rationally defendable religion; he must assume a certain risk-aversity; he must assume that the spectres in the original position are egoists; he must assume away envy, but assume a certain sense of justice; and so on. Assume that God can be known through introspection, and watch his social democratic order devolve into a theocracy. It's a fun exercise to play with the original position by introducing such elements.

Second, and more fundamentally, I think, his experiment also simply doesn't prove anything to begin with. If everyone in the original position agrees to a specific constitution, so what? If a bunch of genderless, colorless, areligious, politically disinterested spectres who don't know the content of their own wallet decide what would be in their best interest, how does that tell us anything? We now know what's expedient for them, not what is good. We do not even know what's expedient for us.

Like I said, his book is complex. It's also disordered and confused. It's the opposite of a well written treatise. He constantly refers forth and back within his own book, too. There have also been some addendums to his theory, written by himself. I'd have to read it a second time to find all the wonderful nuances and subtleties in his argument, but I have decided that it isn't worth it.

I think this sums Rawls up pretty well:

>The difference principle represents, in effect, an agreement to regard the distribution of natural talents as in some respects a common asset and to share in the greater social and economic benefits made possible by the complementarities of this distribution. Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out. The naturally advantaged are not to gain merely because they are more gifted, but only to cover the costs of training and education and for using their endowments in ways that help the less fortunate as well. No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society. But, of course, this is no reason to ignore, much less to eliminate these distinctions. Instead, the basic structure can be arranged so that these contingencies work for the good of the least fortunate. Thus we are led to the difference principle if we wish to set up the social system so that no one gains or loses from his arbitrary place in the distribution of natural assets or his initial position in society without giving or receiving compensating advantages in return.

I think C. S. Lewis said it pretty well: If you're burn a little piece of shit to a family of hookers and violent pimps, then you may not be to blame for what you are, but what you are is still the opposite of lovable. His wording was a little different, of course. If someone is born industrious, or kind, or charitable, he is the kind of person that deserves praise. Sammy Scoundrel, on the other hand, is a vicious piece of shit. That's why he deserves to be treated like one, too.

Likewise, if you're born strong and healthy, the question of whether you deserve it is irrelevant, you're still valuable to the people around you. Same if you're intelligent, or beautiful. You simply are better than others. You may not have worked for it, but the people that you help out with your skills and talents worked even less for them. If we level the inequality stemming from your superiority, we really just distribute its benefits. Instead of a single person getting benefits he didn't work for (the one person who can at least choose to use his skills for good), everyone gets benefits he didn't work for.

Also, note how you cannot just live and let live, you have to decide against improving your situation unless the least fortunate benefit from it. Everything else is an injustice. If you were the only person in Rawlstopia to win a wonderful vacation, you'd have to decline, because if you go on it, only you benefit. To me, this rule is the pinnacle of envy. To Rawls, it would be better if everyone was miserable than that everyone was just as miserable but one lone saint was happy.

>>1159

As far as i understand this argument states that, given that X person doesn't know anything about his social status, he will be more likely to vote for more egalitarian policies

Is there something i'm missing? the very premise of this whole thing seems preposterous, as people in fact tend to know very well their class and position in society, because, well, why the heck wouldn't they?

The only way to make this work would be to temporarily erase the voters' memories at the time of the voting

>>1190

That, too. It just cannot inform us how real politics should work. Like I said, I just don't what his experiment is actually supposed to prove.

Rawls' has to be read to grasp just how detached he was from reality. He's an academic in the worst sense of the word, a supercomputer playing Minecraft in a million instances for all eternity.

I doubt he was worse than Spinoza

>>1233

Never read Spinoza. Can you sum him up quickly?

>>1174

>but they cannot shut up about Marx' theories.

They still have it wrong though

>People don't like astronomical gaps in wealth

>Capitalism needs to be held back by something like nationalism or family or you'll sell guns to undesirables who'll murder you next day.

Also, you can build a marxist utopia, and there were plenty of those over time, unfortunately residents didn't like them at all as described in Gulag Archipelago (^:

>>1275

>Gulag Archipelago

Still gotta read that one. As well as The Great Terror.

Here is a classic: https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/06/rawlsian-god-cryptocalvinism-in-action.html. A few choice quotes follow.

>My contention is that Rawls is not a philosopher, but a minister. Like his Calvinist forebears, he is trying to establish the kingdom of God on Earth. Unlike them, he doesn't admit it.

>The first thing we notice about Rawls is the title of his famous book, A Theory of Justice. As I've mentioned before, this is not just hubristic, but actively Orwellian. For about the last 2500 years, the word justice and its various Indo-European predecessors have meant "the accurate execution of the law." Rawls is no more interested in law than I am in dressage, and when he redefines the word justice to mean, effectively, righteousness, one notes with some dismay that he is confiscating a noun with no existing synonyms. But perhaps this was the publisher's decision - maybe A Theory of Righteousness just wouldn't have moved as well.

>… Cosmic righteousness and consistent, objective law are not just different things. They are actively opposed. Arbitrary rules whose derivation is entirely historical, but whose result is absolutely clear - such as property titles - are often the only way to define a consensus that everyone can agree on peacefully.

>>1283

>The Third Reich, for example, was the first Western state to connect smoking to lung cancer. Which doesn't make me want to go out and buy a pack of Marlboros.

Kek, someone tell Ayn Rand.

>The trouble is that so many writers have debunked Rawls so completely - Nozick's treatment is perhaps the most thorough - that the best anyone can hope for now is a cheap Chinese copy.

This. Anthony de Jasay also did a very good job. Not that I think Rawls really needs debunking, because he never proved anything to begin with.

>The second thing we notice is that Rawls is that he's an incredibly tedious and turgid writer. He has one idea, which he repeats at a length that's simply unbelievable. Bad writing is worrisome in any defense of the status quo, because it fails Auden's ogre test. But again, it is not conclusive.

This a hundred times. His writing was one of the most terrible I've ever seen in political philosophy. It sounded more cumbersome in its native language than most translated works.

>There's an almost medieval flavor to this exercise, and it can lead to an infinite amount of intellectual entertainment. Of course, not even John Rawls can derive "ought" from "is," and there is no rational reason to prefer his definition of an ideal society to anyone else's. Ethics are fundamentally aesthetic. But there is a clarity and prettiness to the Rawlsian theory of righteousness that makes it aesthetically quite attractive, and I certainly cannot imagine any solution to the same problem that I'd find more satisfying.

The is-ought-fallacy is no problem at all to teleologists. Aristotle and Aquinas would've shaken their heads if you had told them of Hume. Of course, however, Rawls doesn't even know what teleology is, so that fallacy applies to his work. I don't even know if he knew from what is he derived his ought.

What I don't get is why he thinks that Rawls' theory is aesthetically pleasing. I found it ugly in all its aspects. It's some serious middle-of-the-road bullshit, collectivist, and leaves no room for the notion of merit.

>>1283

>>1285

>In the kingdom of God on earth, God finds it very easy to make sure NASCAR drivers are paid less than truck drivers. No one can disobey God. He assigns us to our roles, he directs our every movement. If God tells you to turn left at the next light, you don't hang a right.

>The question is: what relevance does this have for the actual problem of government? The answer is: none. As Madison put it, if men were angels, we would need no government at all. In Rawls' kingdom, we are not angels, but we are governed by angels. The great engineering problem of designing a system in which fallible humans can govern each other and get along simply does not exist in Rawls' philosophy.

>Of course Rawls does not actually say this. He just encourages it. By setting up an ideal of righteousness that only divine rule can achieve, Rawls supplies the perfect distraction to help his readers forget that in reality, men are governed only by men, and history knows only two kinds of government: those based on law, and those based on violence.

>For example, in the NASCAR-teamster example, what sort of law would ensure a Rawlsian result? Do we have wage and price controls, Nixon style? The odor of medieval Christianity is unmistakable. You can almost taste the sumptuary laws.

The atheist and statist faggotry aside, he is pointing at the right direction here. The kind of philosophy Rawls came up with is the equivalent of a kid drawing his perfect magical castle. It doesn't inform us at all how we should deal with the world we actually live in. We don't know what individual conduct is moral or immoral, at all.

And from the comment section:

>I think Rawls' importance is over-rated. It is really mostly libertarians who talk about him, and then only because of Nozick's critique of him (and Nozick doesn't even seem to be that popular among libertarians).

He's right on all counts. Yes, Rawls is overrated, in fact he'll probably be forgotten in a hundred years. I hope he'll become a footprint, at least, the way Robert Filmer has become, but I also think there's good reason to believe that that's exactly what's going to happen.

Yes, libertarians seem to talk more about him than anyone else. Maybe academia too, but they're like a hundred lazy people who just stroke his book. They're like a shy boy in a whore house who pretends that he likes what he's doing.

And yes, libertarians don't like Nozick that much. Harvard does. Nozick was neither the most original libertarian (he openly credited Rothbard with inspiring him), nor the most influential (Rand had far more followers, Mises and Rothbard have a following that's still growing), nor was he very good (didn't defend his key premises at all). Not that analytical political philosophers know what's good. You can give them a recipe for Falafel and they'll call it brilliant if it includes a section written in formal logic.

>>1286

I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you're severely underestimating the importance of academia and the impact it has had on plunging us into on the mess we're in. The primary reason Westerners are so hostile to personal sovereignty today and so open to collectivist ideas is their education and its life-long, prole-friendly extension, the media. Rawls is a symptom rather than the cause of the rot, but it is worth noting that the people who end up "punching Nazis" (and to whom a monarchist is just a Nazi in a funny hat) are taught explicitly rawlsian morality at their universities.

>>1292

Didn't want to make this impression. Of course, academia is very important, but not necessarily as it presents itself. Rawls is mostly important for being there, I think. Through him, social democrats and so-called liberals can claim that their theories are rational. The actual content of his theories, on the other hand, is relatively unimportant.

Nozick, likewise, is important for being there. He wrote some good critiques of mainstream political philosophy but by and large, he's non-threatening and cozy. It's like controlled opposition, except it arose naturally. Nozick, like Milton Friedman, is incapable of dealing a serious blow to the prevailing political climate because he never pulled their values out from under them.

The people who really had an impact, who are the cause and not the symptom, are others. The Frankfurt School, for example, and before them the Fabians. Rawls codified the moral code and the worldview that others before him came up with.

>>1292

>rawlsian morality

what do you mean by that?

>>1293

>Rawls codified the moral code and the worldview that others before him came up with.

Right. Moldbug summarized his role rather pithily with something like (not an exact quote)

>Rawls wrote a book in the 1970s to excuse a coup that happened in the 1930s.

The coup was, of course, the New Deal.