• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

John Rawls on How to Design a Society

PureX

Veteran Member
Here are the main points I'd put in place:

- universal healthcare
- affordable, decent housing and food
- meaningful education through high school (including vocational training)
- aid for the disabled
- a shovel for the unemployed (the opportunity for decent pay for a humane day's work)
- a graduated tax code with no deductions or loopholes
These would be a very good start. But somehow we will have to guard against corruption.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
These would be a very good start. But somehow we will have to guard against corruption.

Good point. How about if we added the idea that all subsidies (using a broad definition of subsidy), would have to be voted on by the people. For example, as a people we might decide to stop subsidizing oil companies, and start subsidizing R&D for renewables.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Good point. How about if we added the idea that all subsidies (using a broad definition of subsidy), would have to be voted on by the people. For example, as a people we might decide to stop subsidizing oil companies, and start subsidizing R&D for renewables.
Unfortunately, "the people" would probably vote against subsidizing anything. One of the reasons we need government to collect and spend tax money is because we citizens won't willingly forfeit our money for anything that doesn't benefit us directly and personally, even if it does benefit us, collectively, and tangentially. We are selfish and greedy when it comes to money. Yet somehow we have to pay for all those things that our society needs to function and thrive as a whole. It's one of the advantages of having representational government rather than direct democracy.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
If you were asked to design a society from a Rawlsian original position, what rules or principles for the distribution of resources and benefits would you come up with?

We are not all born equal. Some are born into poverty, some middle class some wealthy. I think it's kind of accepted that children born into wealthy families will have greater opportunity. Children born to poor families we always be at a disadvantage.

From age 5 to 18, all children would need to be put into a community care system. Cutting family ties at least as far as any economic advantages go. Wealth or poverty can not be a factor in their care or education. The children would all get equal health care and education. The children would all live together, eat together, learn together, be treated equally. There'd be no advantage because of wealth nor disadvantage for lack of it.

There'd be no transfer of wealth. When you die your estate would go to the community care system for all children to benefit equally.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
@Nakosis

I don't think such drastic measures would be necessary, AND I think they'd be counter-productive:

- they would encroach on our personal freedoms.
- they would undercut what motivates us.
- they would diminish invention and innovation.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
@Nakosis

I don't think such drastic measures would be necessary, AND I think they'd be counter-productive:

- they would encroach on our personal freedoms.
- they would undercut what motivates us.
- they would diminish invention and innovation.

Ok but the biggest complaint it seems is the advantages of wealth over poverty. How would you handle that?

Any system encroaches on our personal freedoms.
Motivates us? What motivates me I assume is different from what motivates you. I see motivation as individual and unique.
How would it diminism innovation? It just provides an equal platform to launch into adulthood were you are then free to pursue your goals and become as wealthy as your skills allow.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Ok but the biggest complaint it seems is the advantages of wealth over poverty. How would you handle that?

I would mitigate it a bit but not eliminate it. I think the goal here is "fair enough", but not "totally fair, all the time".

Any system encroaches on our personal freedoms.

Agreed, but we ought to strive to minimize such encroachments.

Motivates us? What motivates me I assume is different from what motivates you. I see motivation as individual and unique.

There is some good science concerning motivation, and while of course there are individual differences, there are also virtually universal truths about motivation. It turns out that Dan Pink has done a really good job of making current motivation science accessible in his book "Drive". AND, the short video linked to below does a great job of summarizing the book. I can summarize it even more here:

Healthy, sustainable motivation is based on: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

How would it diminism innovation? It just provides an equal platform to launch into adulthood were you are then free to pursue your goals and become as wealthy as your skills allow.

While I think some limits should apply (again via graduated taxes), providing for one's progeny is a prime motivator.

 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Ok but the biggest complaint it seems is the advantages of wealth over poverty. How would you handle that?

Any system encroaches on our personal freedoms.
Motivates us? What motivates me I assume is different from what motivates you. I see motivation as individual and unique.
How would it diminism innovation? It just provides an equal platform to launch into adulthood were you are then free to pursue your goals and become as wealthy as your skills allow.
I like it.
Everyone would be trained by the collective to serve the collective.
There'd be no wasteful competition, advertising, unnecessary goods
or services, management, money or anything which could offend.
Everyone would get exactly the state authorized goods they need for free.
All entertainment would be uplifting & enhance state sanctioned values.

Let's go further.
Create real equality with a Handicapper General.
- Those with athletic ability must have clothing weighted down with lead.
- Intelligent people must wear noisy disorienting & distracting headsets.
- The beautiful & ugly alike must all wear veils so there's no shallow valuing of appearance.
- Leaders would be randomly selected.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I would mitigate it a bit but not eliminate it. I think the goal here is "fair enough", but not "totally fair, all the time".



Agreed, but we ought to strive to minimize such encroachments.



There is some good science concerning motivation, and while of course there are individual differences, there are also virtually universal truths about motivation. It turns out that Dan Pink has done a really good job of making current motivation science accessible in his book "Drive". AND, the short video linked to below does a great job of summarizing the book. I can summarize it even more here:

Healthy, sustainable motivation is based on: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.



While I think some limits should apply (again via graduated taxes), providing for one's progeny is a prime motivator.



As pointed out, monetary incentive works at a certain level. Get a group of software engineers, of course this is going to be mostly a creative bunch of folks. Probably not the same creativity as construction workers or sanitation workers. I can see it working depending on the group of individuals your are working with but it might not work with all groups.

We kind of have a system like this. We have salary/non-salary employees. The salaried folks are expected to put more time more creativity into their jobs. Non-salaried do repetitive tasks. They put more work in they get paid more. The more created folks usually rise to a salaried position.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
So you believe that it is impossible to ever reach complete fairness. That does mot mean that we cannot strive towards that goal amd create a more fair system than we would otherwise.

We already do this.

And this (The U.S.A) is the result.

Every attempt at making it "more fair" has only caused wars and the starvation of millions of people (Look up successful communist states vs failed communist states, the failed list is substantial larger).
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I like it.
Everyone would be trained by the collective to serve the collective.
There'd be no wasteful competition, advertising, unnecessary goods
or services, management, money or anything which could offend.
Everyone would get exactly the state authorized goods they need for free.
All entertainment would be uplifting & enhance state sanctioned values.

Let's go further.
Create real equality with a Handicapper General.
- Those with athletic ability must have clothing weighted down with lead.
- Intelligent people must wear noisy disorienting & distracting headsets.
- The beautiful & ugly alike must all wear veils so there's no shallow valuing of appearance.
- Leaders would be randomly selected.

No body is serving a collective. It's just a means to ensure everyone has equal access to education until they are 18. What they do after that is up to them.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Economics is not a zero sum game.
Your feast / famine simply is not so.

If we have 2 people in room and 2 pieces of cake. If one of those people cheats to obtain both pieces of cake. The other person will starve.

So unless you can either end corruption so that nobody cheats any longer. Any and every system will corrupt, to varying degrees.

Pretending like there is more pieces of cake than people in the room than hungry people. Doesn't solve the problem. Hence why the U.S.S.R starved millions to death as a communist state.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
See you have already identified one facet that is counter to fairness. Specifically cheating and corruption. It seems that you would suggest that it is unfair to reward people who are taking advantage of the system.

What is corruption?

I see it as someone taking advantage of the system for the sake of themselves, their family, their friends.

Is this a natural human inclination or is it because people don't see the system as fair? There's folks who unfairly seem to be wealthy. There's folks who seem to be unfairly poor.

So you game the system for your benefit since it is only fair because the system is gamed against you.

How do you ungame the system?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If we have 2 people in room and 2 pieces of cake. If one of those people cheats to obtain both pieces of cake. The other person will starve.

So unless you can either end corruption so that nobody cheats any longer. Any and every system will corrupt, to varying degrees.

Pretending like there is more pieces of cake than people in the room than hungry people. Doesn't solve the problem. Hence why the U.S.S.R starved millions to death as a communist state.

Economics is not a zero sum game.

Your underdtanding is maybe grade school
level, if that.

Please do not vote if you are unwilling to
educate yourself.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Economics is not a zero sum game.

Your underdtanding is maybe grade school
level, if that.

Please do not vote if you are unwilling to
educate yourself.

I know history leaves a trail of evidence that disputes your theories emphatically and its frustrating.

But hang in there comrade!

One day someone will get it right eventually!

Just gotta keep starving those millions of people to death until you can make it work!
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
What is corruption?

I see it as someone taking advantage of the system for the sake of themselves, their family, their friends.

Is this a natural human inclination or is it because people don't see the system as fair? There's folks who unfairly seem to be wealthy. There's folks who seem to be unfairly poor.

So you game the system for your benefit since it is only fair because the system is gamed against you.

How do you ungame the system?
Well corruption is usually traced to lack of integrity, dishonesty, in an attempt to derive benefit. I am not sure that gaming the system is a problem, unless you mean dishonestly gaming the system. I think that gaming the system can have different meaning.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
We already do this.

And this (The U.S.A) is the result.

Every attempt at making it "more fair" has only caused wars and the starvation of millions of people (Look up successful communist states vs failed communist states, the failed list is substantial larger).
I do not think that the free breakfast program has caused wars and starvation. Nor do I think that putting limits on game hunted or fished has caused wars and starvation. I could be wrong, i just don't think I am.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
I do not think that the free breakfast program has caused wars and starvation. Nor do I think that putting limits on game hunted or fished has caused wars and starvation. I could be wrong, i just don't think I am.

I understand what your saying. And your right, but.

You can cherry pick 1 or 2 good things out of an idelogy, and it doesn't justify it.

Take National Socialism for example.

A lot of people who needed jobs, got jobs!

Doesn't mean Nazis were good though.

Helping folks out a little doesn't justify taking it to a grand scale. As proven in history time and time again. It often goes awry despite the best of intentions and well laid plans. This is due to corruption we as humans bring to the table.

In a perfect world. Where everyone played by the rules. A socialist or communist ideology can work. I'll concede that. But due to human nature it's always fooked up usually by a handful of greedy players who bend/break the rules. Then a great many suffer for it.


* Sorry for the edits. It's hard for me to see right now so a lot of errors *
 
Top