progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL then on the other" rather than ranting specifically about his special position. Yet he clearly has a pro neo-progressive bent 167 . He says of Rawls' principles 168 : "It is not hard to see that there are some contributions of great importance in the Rawlsian approach to justice and fairness and in a way Rawls has presented and explicated its implications. First, the idea that fairness is central to justice … Second, … importance … about the nature of the objectivity of practical reason … sufficient … for conclusions to be reached on the basis of reasons and evidence after discussion and due reflection … Third, …"moral powers" … that people have related to their "capacity for a sense of justice" and "for a conception of the good"… Fourth, Rawls's prioritization of liberty … Fifth, by insisting on a need for procedural fairness … Sixth, … after giving liberty its due and after recognizing the need to have openness … the importance of equity in social arrangements … the removal of poverty measured in terms of the deprivation of primary goods is given a big place in Rawls's theory… Finally, focusing on "primary goods" … Rawls gives indirect acknowledgement to the importance of human freedom in giving people real … opportunity to do what they would like with their own lives." Sen, when we condense it as above, lays out the seven point which are the focus of Rawls and I many ways the neo-progressives. Others like Arrow, Solow, Dworkin, Nussbaum, have made similar arguments. The problem however is that even if one agrees with all these principles is it possible to reach some consensus? Namely if one considers the Arrow Possibility Theorem then attempting to reach consensus on the above seven point may be impossible. Arrow has stated: 167 Sen, Justice, p 64 footnote where he says "… the evident suitability of Obama himself as a visionary leader, irrespective of his racial background." Sen clearly is a strong supporter f the Obama agenda and in particular the redistribution elements. 168 Sen, Justice, pp 62-65. Page 168
The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL Possibility Theorem: If there are at least three alternatives among which the members of the society are free to order in any way, then every social function satisfying conditions 2 and 3 and yielding a social ordering satisfying Conditions 2 and 3 must be either imposed or dictatorial 169 . The Possibility Theorem shows that, if no prior assumptions are made about the nature of individual orderings, there is no method of voting which will remove the paradox of voting discussed in Part I, neither plurality voting nor any scheme of proportional representation, no matter how complicated. Similarly, the market mechanism does not create a rational social choice. The interpretation of the Possibility Theorem is given by examination of the meaning Of Conditions 1-5. In particular, it is required that the social ordering be formed from individual orderings and that the social decision between two alternatives be independent of the desires of individuals involving any alternatives other than the given two (Conditions 1 and 3). These conditions taken together serve to exclude interpersonal comparison of social utility either by some form of direct measurement or by comparison with other alternative social states. Therefore, the Possibility Theorem can be restated as follows: If we exclude the possibility of interpersonal comparisons of utility, then the only methods of passing from individual tastes to social preferences which will be satisfactory and which will be defined for a wide range of sets of individual orderings are either imposed or dictatorial. The word "satisfactory" in the foregoing statement means that the social welfare function does not reflect individuals' desires negatively (Condition 2 ) and that the resultant social tastes be represented an ordering having the properties Of rationality ascribed to individual orderings (Condition 1 and Axioms I and II)." The Arrow Theorem is quite simplistic but its conclusion may be unsettling at best. Namely if we all have different sets of values, opinions, then getting to a conclusion without each having a chance to voice their views can only be achieved by a dictator. This does not bode well for neo-Progressives. In a broader context Sen has stated: 169 See Arrow, K., A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 58, No. 4. (Aug., 1950), pp. 328-346. He gives the conditions as follows: Condition 2: If an alternative social state x rises or does not fall in the ordering of each individual without any other change in those orderings and i f x was preferred to another alternative y before the change in individual orderings. then zis still preferred to y. Condition 3: Let R,, R,, and R:, R: he two sets of individual orderings. I f , for both individuals i and for all x and y in a given set of alternatives S, xRiy if and only if f and only if xXy: ,then the social choice made from S is the same whether the individual orderings are R,, R,, or R:, R:. (Independence of irrelevant alternatives.) Page 169
Page 1 and 2:
+++ The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM
Page 3 and 4:
The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, IN
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
The Telmarc Group Preface PROGRESSI
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
The Telmarc Group 4.1.3 Hobbes and
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
The Telmarc Group 4.5.2 The New Fre
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118: The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, IN
Page 147 and 148: The Telmarc Group Hofstadter contin
Page 167: The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, IN
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
The Telmarc Group and the Progressi
show all

progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?