Skip to main content

View Diary: Taxing the rich: it's not about "fairness" (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have no idea what people mean when they say, "fairness", and have heard it referenced to mean opposite things. Fairness is a concept usable only within a shared set of values and the cultural diversity of in the US precludes such commonality. Within what range? Within what foundation? In fact even attempting to use "fairness" exposes a certain failure to mentally accommodate diversity that it's argumentally self defeating.  There may be a standard for the narrow courts of US law, perhaps for a specific union or corporate environment, but it's not sensible nationally.

    Let all Bush tax cuts expire and , bring on the Sequestration cuts to defense.

    by kck on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 05:44:28 PM PST

    •  Please read Rawls: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

      by play jurist on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 12:41:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read it many years ago. (0+ / 0-)

        A good book, thanks for the link. And even in this clip at your link:

        As Rawls writes in the preface, the restatement presents "in one place an account of justice as fairness as I now see it, drawing on all [my previous] works."

        Let all Bush tax cuts expire and , bring on the Sequestration cuts to defense.

        by kck on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 07:18:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I haven't studied Rawls (0+ / 0-)

        though he's been on my bucket list for years. But I have read a fair amount about his writings.

        As I understand it, his core idea is that a just society is one that we would choose to be born into, not knowing in advance whether we'd be one of the lucky, healthy, wealthy ones or one of the disadvantaged.

        In other words, it should be redistributive enough to provide an adequate safety net for the less fortunate, while not excessively burdening the lucky ones.

        This is undoubtedly a beautiful thought. What I don't know is whether Rawls tells us how you get there. I envision his society as like a Petri dish, into which you drop a single newborn baby—as a sort of "justice probe"—and watch what happens. Does he address the question of how all these people influence each other, and thereby the evolution of the society as a whole (for example, by a tendency to concentrate wealth).

        I welcome any explanations.

        What is valued is practiced. What is not valued is not practiced. -- Plato

        by RobLewis on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 10:29:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm most familiar with the general (0+ / 0-)

          normative framework. How you get there is another question involving the nitty gritty of politics. But, I think that we don't get there by abandoning the terms in which the normative ideal is framed. Maybe Rawls' position is ultimately untenable. There are critics within the liberal philosophical tradition. However, I found the diary very hasty in dismissing a concept that is at the center of the most influential American political philosopher of the 20th century's articulation of liberal ideals. I wanted to get that across. I wish I had time to write up a diary on Rawls or do a regular series on political philosophy/philosophers. Alas, academia is cut throat and every moment not spent on research and publications feels like a moment wasted.

          Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

          by play jurist on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 03:28:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site