Category: (Book)
28 new, starting at $18.64
13 used, starting at $18.64
Social justice: an ideal, forever beyond our grasp; or one of many practical possibilities? More than a matter of intellectual discourse, the idea of justice plays a real role in how—and how well—people live. And in this book the distinguished scholar Amartya Sen offers a powerful critique of the theory of social justice that, in its grip on social and political thinking, has long left practical realities far behind.
The transcendental theory of justice, the subject of Sen’s analysis, flourished in the Enlightenment and has proponents among some of the most distinguished philosophers of our day; it is concerned with identifying perfectly just social arrangements, defining the nature of the perfectly just society. The approach Sen favors, on the other hand, focuses on the comparative judgments of what is “more” or “less” just, and on the comparative merits of the different societies that actually emerge from certain institutions and social interactions.
At the heart of Sen’s argument is a respect for reasoned differences in our understanding of what a “just society” really is. People of different persuasions—for example, utilitarians, economic egalitarians, labor right theorists, no-nonsense libertarians—might each reasonably see a clear and straightforward resolution to questions of justice; and yet, these clear and straightforward resolutions would be completely different. In light of this, Sen argues for a comparative perspective on justice that can guide us in the choice between alternatives that we inevitably face.
(20090806)
seeds of further work to be doneReviewed by A. Menon, 2009-10-20
This is an accessible yet dense book. Sen essentially argues that
it is extremely difficult and likely past the ability of people to
start axiomatically about how a justice system should be formed and
deduce the practical results. This stems from the fact that the
elements that people define as the parameters of their freedom are
multidimensional versus something reducible to say utility, or even
a ranking system of priorities that Rawls prioritized on. The
repurcussion of this lack of strict relationships between the
various degrees of "freedom" that people live under he reasons
(along the lines of mathematical economists) there dont exist
strict "optimal" solutions. He makes the point clear by referring
to self referential utility and the fact that in such systems and
especially the real world, our freedoms are all interconnected and
thus there are sometimes no way to go about ranking justice from a
bottom up perspective.
I think its hard to not agree with that as a thesis. An obvious
example of an incredibly difficult practical problem to solve via
ranking individual freedoms would be something like the environment
and global warming. Another current example is solving moral hazard
problems, especially within finance- there are a MASS of
perspectives of right and wrong depending on how one weighs
aggregate policy repurcussions against the need to promote lesson
learning. Sen argues that problems which involve large systems need
to be looked at as a complex system and judged by the repurcussions
of the social architecture and then the "wisdom of crowds" both
local and global shed light on the greatest injustices which should
then be dealt with. Sen takes a very practical approach to justice
as the complexities of trying to actually define a system of
justice in a philosophical axiomatic way is unlikely to yield the
results that are hoped for due to the multitude of priorities and
competing interests. He doubts the philosophical exercises that
give weight to the conclusion that our measures of right and wrong
are all on the same side of the scale that we define as right and
wrong (ie right is right wrong is wrong under veil of ignorance)
and articulates this with one of his opening example of the kids
and what their rights/entitlements are. To be honest, i would doubt
that justice philosophers dont readily acknowledge a lot of what
Sen says, but defer to the fact that one cannot define justice in a
philophical sense from the top down. That is what things like
common law and political lawmaking have evolved from (one can
debate whether this is effective but our institutions allow for
bottom up modification based off top down repurcussions), our
inherint understanding that as things evolve, so does the justice
system. Things that shape judges and political opinions are often
intellectual movements that originated via people doing thought
experiments of how we might be biased and what are ways to remove
that (veil of ignorance).
Im surprised at the dissillusionment in the theory of rawls. It has
served an extremely valuable service, and i think those people who
work on describing new social contract ideas have the potential to
be very influential on institutional arragnement. Similarly so will
social choice theorists as they will counterbalance some of the
over deduction used from foundational exploration by philosophers.
Its hard not to see how both are necessary places for people to be
working. One reviewer critiques the lack of embracing behavioral
economics and the leaning on more walrusian style actors. I
personally dont get that at all, and see the whole thesis as
evidence that people cant be reduced to agents operating under
utility maximization. One cant start from a framework of
behavioural finance because it has no assumption basis from which
results follow, its primarily a results based field for which
results are used to work out internal dynamics- which is what Sen
is saying we need to adopt.
All in all, the book has a LOT of material and ideas, it gets you
interested in more, but is really far from complete. I didnt get a
sense of chapters following one another particularly, but perhaps
there is no real way of doing that well either given the amount Sen
was trying to cover. I plan on reading more on the subject. The
mental prodding the book does is reason enough to buy it, but this
book definately wont leave one feeling like, ah, this is the final
chapter, not even close. This sort of book really should open up
debate, in a constructive way, but is unable to make one feel like
we have the tools to measure justice in a more fair way.
The Idea of JusticeReviewed by Adnan M. S. Fakir, 2009-10-19
Within the past month I was lucky enough to be able to meet with
Amartya Sen thrice; at a conference, at a discussion and signing of
his new book "The Idea of Justice," and at a dinner where I was
honored to be able to hold a long discussion with him. Here I will
draw on my understanding of him and his subject to give a brief
review of his new book, "The Idea of Justice."
One of the carried misconceptions that I would like to point out in
the beginning is that Sen is not a quote-and-quote hard boiled
economist. Rather he is more of a philosopher of economic thought.
As such most of his work carries inherent philosophies which can
shake off the first readers. "The Idea of Justice" is entirely a
building of philosophical ideologies as he draws on economic
reasoning, current policies, laws and politics. One of the
introductory examples Sen provides involves taking three kids and a
flute. Anne says the flute should be given to her because she is
the only one who knows how to play it. Bob says the flute should be
handed to him as he is so poor he has no toys to play with. Carla
says the flute is hers because it is the fruit of her own labor.
How do we decide between these three legitimate claims?
Sen argues that with the current system which follows policies and
laws based on a search of a "just society" as put forth by English
Enlightenment Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and followed on by John
Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and the contemporary
most influential figure John Rawls (thereby often being referred to
as the Rawlsian project; much of Sen's critique is towards Rawls'
1971 book, "A Theory of Justice"), there is no arrangement that can
help us resolve this dispute in a universally accepted just manner.
What really enables us to resolve the dispute between the three
children is the value we attach to the pursuit of human
fulfillment, removal of poverty, and the entitlement to enjoy the
products of one's own labor.
Who gets the flute depends on your philosophy of justice. Bob, the
poorest, will have the immediate support of the economic
egalitarian. The libertarian would opt for Carla. The utilitarian
hedonist will bicker a bit but will eventually settle for Anne
because she will get the maximum pleasure, as she can actually play
the instrument. While all three decisions are based on rational
arguments and correct within their own perspective, they lead to
totally different resolutions.
The current system, Sen argues, revolves around an imaginary
"social contract" where we are trying to make ideally just
institutions assuming that people will comply with it. Sen
identifies two major problems with this "arrangement focused" or
"transcendental institutionalism" approach. The first is a
feasibility problem of coming to an agreement on the
characteristics of a "just society;" the second a redundancy
problem of trying to repeatedly identify a "just society."
What Sen proposes is a "realization-focused" approach that
"concentrates on the actual behavior of people, rather than
presuming compliance by all with ideal behavior." Instead of
focusing on an ideally just society which is influencing much of
the recent political economy, Sen's alternative focuses more on the
removal of manifesting injustice on which we all rationally agree
and the advancement of justice from the world as we see, instead of
looking for perfection, which Sen points out, can never be
attained.
What makes Sen's writing more appealing to me is how he correlates
many previously almost sadly unnoticed eastern ideologies with the
western approaches, including those of Kautliya, the Indian
political economy and strategy writer now claimed to be the Indian
Machiavelli (which is funny because Kautliya was from the 4th
century BC being compared to Machiavelli from the 15th century) and
from early Indian Jurisprudence, namely the niti and the nyaya, to
mention a few. Although Amartya Sen touches on these eastern topics
as inspirational matters, I would be more satisfied if he had gone
into more detail of their analysis in his book, "The Idea of
Justice."
Democracy as Discussion - A Postmodern Theory of JusticeReviewed by T1818, 2009-10-09
Professor Sen attempts to base Democracy on sustained reasoning and
attempts to start the sustained reasoning from a point at which
there are only value free interests as for Professor Sen there are
no universal values or truths. 'The Idea of Justice' is firmly in
line with Lyotard's Postmodernism where there are no
'metanarratives'. The sustained reasoning of Sen is much different
than what sustained reasoning is generally taken to be. With Sen
sustained reasoning is admitting from the start that there is no
answer and then adressing various hot button issues briefly. The
sustained reasoning of Professor Sen is more akin to a free
associating after a very wide ranging reading than the presentation
of 'one long argument'. Professor Sen has 10 qualifications for
every idea put forth.
Strangely this book is more or less completely disconnected from
the events and difficulties of the day. Basically there is free
speech in the US and this has covered all groups since the 60's.
The US still has lots and lots of problems. Who is going to
undertake this sustained, reasoned discussion? How does Professor
Sen intend to convince Rupert Murdoch, Glen Beck et al that is the
way to go? Or Keith Olberman for that matter. Of course, Professor
Sen isn't going to try. Of course this reasoned discussion isn't
going to occur on TV or via the newspapers or the blogosphere. The
only place this reasoned discussion could take place is in
academia.
So what does this all all add up to? 10 different liberal positions
debated endlessly in academia where all sides admit that there is
no grounding for the views put forth and while this is going in the
neo-cons who basically live by 'Contingeny, Irony and Solidarity'
march the nation to war, poverty and a cultural wasteland with
10,000 indidiviuals redescribing, under the sign of eternal
veriities, events across the world and who do so because there is
zip else to do because a cultural wasteland has been created.
'The idea of Justice' is remarkably silent about the basis of
Democracy which is of course balance of powers. Sen presents a
theory of Democracy where Demoracy is run along the lines of a
roundtable which is clearly at best a very ivory tower view of
Democracy. Of course the point of these discussions is not to get
every one's opinions and intersts but it is to shape opinions and
interests. Democracy as discussion is the opening gambit of an
academic crowd control measure. Sen seems to be recommeding the
baby be split in tenths and basically the baby is no one's baby so
the baby is going to get split
'The Idea of Justice' is grounded by inferentialism, that there is
no Given, no Presence. ( This is clearly false. Presence is clear
and definite.) Those who keep moving debates back by coming up with
new sets of reasons are going to loose all discussions, things just
get more complicated and more arcane. With inferentialism there are
no acceptable answers but only answers which are accepted and the
answers which are accepted are a function of power relations.
'A Theory of Justice' is totally secure from the 'The Idea of
Justice'. At worst 'A Theory of Justice' is the premier example of
real sustained reasoning, 'one long argument' in the last 50 years
in political philosophy. Now of course free speech is important but
the point here is that free speech allows the one best plan to
emerge and then hopefully this plan is ratified by voting. There
are facts and not just competing interests where everyone is
basically on target. France has a better health system than the US
and that is flat out fact, for example. Now Professor Sen is
clearly a very civilized individual and clearly personally liberal
but 'The Idea of Justice' is recipe for liberal disaster.
Of course civility is called for and of course one has to live with
the fact that sometimes the vote goes against one but one has to
stand up for the Truth which is Present. Of course in Congress
there are votes and if the point of 'The Idea of Justice' is that
all parties fail to get what is desired with voting this states
what is already completely obvious. Voting has zip to do with truth
or admitting that other parties are making valid points which fly
in the face of what one is propounding but only admits that
adhering to a vote is the best workable solution. With transparent
worthwhile earmarks the basics of bills can be maintained absent
compromise and worthy bills still passed.
'The Idea of Justice' offers zip in the ways of Justice given that
one is not actively engaged in public debate as I am not. All 'The
Idea of Justice' tells indviduals standing by is to accept the
blooming confusion. 'A Theory of Justice' far from being
transcendental on the other hand is a book which one can read and
which can guide one even if one is not involved in public
discussion and, not to be scoffed at in any way, this is of course
the main success of 'The Theory of Justice', to date.
The 'Powers That Be' have always used the argument that the
'plebians' have to be kept down because doing menial tasks, working
the fields etc is what is in line with the 'capabilities' of the
'plebians'. There is clearly zip inherently emancipatory about
stressing cabablities. Down through all of history the argument has
basically been used to repress. John Rawls stress on basic goods
is, of course, emancipatory. 'The Idea of Justice' isn't really
directed at assisting disavantaged groups except as an afterthought
as the last chapter makes clear. Clearly there is no group of
people actually addressing the capabilities of disadvantaqed
indvdiuals outside of teaching settings and parenting and there is
no real movement to do so. Thankfully people are addressing basics
such as Bill Gates.
Virtually 'The Idea of Justice' is directed at the capabiities of
academics vis-a-vis a 'Common Good' which would be dictated rather
than agreed to happily, so to speak, bypassing Arrow's Impossiblity
Theorem. Always with a Postmodernism such is offered here there is
an exoteric anarchic 'freewheeling' component but always too there
is an esoteric more totalitarian component which here would be
service to a dictated 'Common Good'. Always the 'Common Good' these
days demands that the whole be hidden and actually assisting people
isn't really required. On the 'plus' side one's ideas about the
world can be false, one can be ironic about one's work, as the
ideas are being put forward to hide the Whole but one must be clear
that one has abandoned the scientific enterprise. People are
addressed as unconcious automatons, zombies, and this has to be as
the Whole must be hidden. What of course happens is rather than the
Good being effected noise is inserted into the system. That an
attempt is ongoing to hide the whole is not that huge a leap. For
example there is zip chance that Rupert Murdoch believes much of
what Glen Beck or Bill O'Riley blather on about. At the limit the
'Common Good' becomes a Hegelian negation of the West.
Redescriptions of the work of academics who fail to use
capabilities for the 'Common Good' is the enforcement tool. Another
method used to indoctrinate academics is academics are basically
ordered to take the ludicrous to heart for example academics have
been trained to behold the individual as a robot the 'I' an
illusion, consciousness an illusion, and the only way to escape
this ludicrous result is to get with the political agenda of power
wielding academics. That there is no temporal self is the latest
nonsense that academics are being force fed with the only proposed
escape hatch to get with the agenda. Counting the number of angels
who can dance on a pin is up from where a lot of graduate
'philosphy' departments are today. Riding the rails must be better
than being a graduate student in the 'philosophy' department of the
University of Pittsburgh for example. 'Cognitive philosophy' is
more or less a complete disaster and ludicrous. 'Cognitive
psychology' on which cognitive philosphy is based is nonsensical.
People live in a world which is brain grounded. The 'cognitive' is
extraneous. Basically the attack on Presence, brought foward by
Heidegger, has gone underground and anything which destabilizes
Presence is now force fed to academics. The hiding of the Whole,
the Forgetting of Being is the idea that is driving the West now.
These people, neo-cons and neo-liberals do not have ideas that are
able to thrive in the light of day. That people are zombies by and
large is the key idea one has to pick up on as only by treating
people as zombies is the agenda hidden. Zombie mania has swept the
West. The arguments over determinism aren't about physics but
rather about how people are to be treated. The selling point of
determinism is that with determinism people are treated as zombies.
What happens of course is as what is delivered via media news etc
is presented in terms of 'social science' contructs and people
become disorientated. The social science 'unconcious' is out in
front of people, Present as nonsense. 'Avatar' provides an example
of a social science contruct where allegedely people are being
fundamentally reached but rather the pretty pictures and social
science constructs are out front, Present, with the nonsense
accepted because of the pretty pictures. The point, of course, of
neo-liberal 'artworks' such as 'Avatar' isn't to reach people
fundamentally but rather to conceal the Whole. There is no real
attempt to control people for the better via unconcious
manipulations, these people aren't would be Hari Seldons, but
rather the whole is to be hidden and all is to be put in turmoil
and then tipping points are reached and the neo-liberals and
neo-cons then attempt to push the US into a new configuration. The
goal is to set up a crisis.
Why the move to forget Being now? During the 20's and 30's
Heidegger beheld the mass popular movements Nazi and Communism and
concluded that the whole, had to be hidden from the 'plebians' or
there would be these uncontrollable mass movements. Alternatively
Heidegger was a morally defective human being. Heidegger of course
never attempted to unconceal Being but always to conceal Being,
Permanent Presence, from the West. Such was Heidegger's project.
Always with the unconcealment of Being comes some grasp of the
Whole and such is anathema for the neo-cons. The West is now being
treated for an illness it doesn't have. The West is basically being
bled by neo-cons and neo-liberals for an illness it doesn't have.
Nazi and Communism are forms of jihad, of course, but Democracy is
far from being a jihad. And, of course, leaving the events to an
elite few who work behind the scenes has never stopped a rush to
disaster as all history attests to.
What happens of course is that people become troubled with a loss
of the Whole and are easily turned into a mob witness the
teabaggers. When anxiety over the loss of the whole grows to such
an extent a trigger such as a terrorist event will stampede the
whole. The goal of neo-cons is when the tipping point comes to be
there and redescribe events so the nation is pushed into a whole
new configuration. The goal of neo-cons such as Leo Strauss was to
give people meaningless lives by hiding the whole so the people
could be pushed into new configurations. Neo-liberals are working
hand in hand with neo-cons in academia. The West is to be destroyed
with it's principle of justice, which basically revolves around
ameliorating disaster now, and instead the people are to live under
the star of 'social science'. The neo-liberal capabilities approach
is a mirage vis-a-vis assisting people, an aspect of the concealing
of the Whole and the Forgetting of Being. Sounds well meaning but
there is no weight to it, there is no capabilites approach.
'The Idea of Justice' wasn't written to be persuasive, of course.
The point of 'The idea of Justice' is to open a discussion where
the goals of individuals with questions vis-a-vis 'The Idea of
Justice' are worked on. The goal of the 'The Idea of Justice' is
therapeutic and while in therapy the 'therapist' is going to keep
quiet about the 'therapist' and all talk by the 'therapist' about
the goals of the 'therapist' verbotten. Rather than real discussion
or conversation 'therapy' is the goal of the 'The Idea of Justice'
and of course self analysis is verbotten. By definition the
'therapist' knows more about you than you. If one finds a gonzo
'reflectivity' is being pushed on one one is being punished. The
goal here is the ultimate destruction of who you you are or for you
to manifest an unwavering completely owned obediance to higher ups
with a willingness to lie with a happy smile to hide the whole to
let high neo-cons and neo-liberals proceed with the destruction of
the West or both. Currently the dismemberment of Pakistan seems to
be a goal of neo-cons and neo-liberals. See Christoper Hitchens on
the neo-con side, for example. Hitchens is against the the Afghan
surge. See various neo-liberals, Glen Greewald, for example who are
for a 'just leave' Afghansitan. approach. Greenwald and Hitchens
are on the same page. With a collapsing Pakistan attendant on a
resurrgent Taliban India has little choice but to attack Pakistan
to stabilize the area and make sure the nuclear weapons of Pakistan
are unused. A million Indian and Pakistanis killed is just another
historical blip for Hitchens, quite normal.
You are expected to develop tunnel vision. You are expected to
accept an 'I' that is lessened. The you given to you isn't you or a
better grasping of you but rather a you that doesn't see much but
has a desire that fits in with the agenda of those who give you
your 'I'. What does one get for this lessened 'I'. One isn't
harrassed if one accepts the place that is given to one. There is
no happieness or upholding of values. One escapes being bitched at.
One bitches. One might very well be told one must advance the
Disgust Culture, prevalent today. Absolutely a thousand different
reasons are given to backup the 'Disgust Culture'. You can
obviously be a Republican Yuppie with a progressive lifestyle and
make psycho videos trolling for anyone who is other than a sane
Yuppie Republican with a progressive lifestyle. The 'sane'
Republicans are trying to conceal that there are supposedly sane
sorts of Republicans which is hardly a mark of sanity. Or you can
stupidly mock others indirectly on political sites under a
pseudonym 'Dickwad' for example never addressing directly the
target and fantasize about being in a movement, being a double
agent for the opposite political agenda of which the website is
supposededly all about, but of course you are of the Disgust
Culture. 40,000 see the stupidity and only 20 see the stupid
mockery. You can run a fake from the left perspective site which
basically reports every blathering comment of Sarah Palin
dissgusting liberals day after day. To liberals Sarah Palin just
isn't news until she is in office or running for office. Why talk
Palin up now? To disgust liberals. You can raise expectations and
dash liberals expectations weekly by spinning the political news of
the day thereby taking the steam out of a movement for change
thereby disgusting liberals. You can attempt to sell liberalism as
having a better fashion sense thereby disugusting liberals who are
pro ameliorating the disaters of the day. You can make a leftist
tabloid taking lessons from Murdoch and thereby attempt to reduce
the issues to blatherings thereby disgusting liberals. In Hollywood
you can make what is essentially Porkies 107 i.e. 'Bachelor Party'.
Of course, movies which have to disgust fundamentalists are made.
Take 'The Book of Eli'. It doesn't fit into any sort of Christian
worldview though it is centered around a Bible. The Bible is movie
prop. That has to disgust. You can make little movies for Hollywood
compadres and tell the compadres that that they are a lot Che
Guevera say. Of course the idea for the film was given to you by
higher ups as a little joke on you and the compadres. You got to be
disgusted at the unreality of it. The audience can be told it is
mentally ill as does 'Shutter's Island'. The style of the film
points to the 'the government is experimenting with LSD' rather
than mental illness. Dicaprio didn't look neuroleptic upped.
Neuroleptics prevent motion sickness and neuroleptics which don't
cross the blood brain barrier are used to prevent seasickness but
DiCaprio was seasick. There are no visual hallucinations in major
mental illness. Sudden breaks in a biologically intact human being
don't engender visual hallucinations. Role playing is circa the
60's rather than the 50's. Via the ending individuals of the
audience are told by Scorcese 'maybe you are paranoid'. First what
goes before doesn't point to what seems to be the conclusion and
second of all the ending only seems to answer the questions.
Scorcese is clearly highly, highly overrated. Thomas Pynchon junked
the greatest writing talent of the last half of the 20th century by
such a tactic, by saying over and over again it is only paranoia,
you are paranoid, i.e. people like the neo-cons have no larger
plots going. The new meme in Hollywood is, is it there are not
there? The 'avante-garde' has been trained to 'appreciate' movies
where the ending is open ended. Presence is clear and definite and
open ended movies attempt to destablize Presence by making all that
went before indistinct. Now whole movies such as 'Shutter's Island'
and 'Avatar' are indistinct and this is again an attempt to
destabilize Presence. 'Avatar' is an almost perfectly disgusting
movie. With Avatar enviromentalists really are just pro merging
with the Earth Mother, all that temperture data is really beside
the point. Global warming is just a dodge for the desire to unify
with Earth Mother. That has to disgust liberals and
environmentalists. On the other hand 'Avatar' has military types as
basically butchers and this while the US is involved in 2 wars with
hundreds of thousands of troops overseas fighting for the US. That
disgusts both conservatives and liberals. 3 lines could have
disconnected the military on Pandora from the US military but those
3 line were purposely not put in. Why all the movies about Earth
Mother these days from the ghastly 'Synedoche, New York', in
'Synedoche, New York' one despairs after the loss of the powerful
Earth Mother presence, to 'Avatar'? The Hollywood intelligentsia is
into fifth rate mythology see 'Star Wars' for example. That is one
half of the story. The other half of the story is that a
neo-liberal 'philosopher' decided that at this time of life it was
best to become 'Earth Mother'. Hollywood now marches to the tune of
a neo-liberal 'philosopher' who is the 'Earth Mother'. Editing is
all and style is substance in Hollywood. One can thank 'Earth
Mother' for this. In all probability the 'Earth Mother' routine is
just a scam, that is 'Earth Mother' doesn't really hold that she is
Earth Mother. Hollywood has to be given some reason to justify the
disgusting movies being made and giving the world a secret
mythology, an Earth Mother mytholgy via movies was almost surely
the sales pitch to people like Spielberg. You could be told to put
up thousands of reviews on Netflix that give glowing reviws to the
most exploitive movies on Netflix. The disgusting has to be given a
'perfume' otherwise it will be rejected and you can help out there.
You could become a professional movie critic. Movie critics spin
reviews, the reviews never being about the movies but rather about
hiding what is there so there is no revolt against the junk being
produced by Hollywood. This disgusts. One can disagree with this if
one can find a single movie critic who gives reviews on a regular
basis of what one actually sees in the movies. Movies critics are
not tuned into a higher aesthetic but rather have an agenda but
frequently can write literately, which suggests a higher asethetic,
which unfortunately is not there. If all professional movie
reviewing stopped tomorrow and this includes those who post
professionally on Netflix, (the top 3 reviews on any movie) the
world would not be a better place but a much better place. You can
work to destroy science literacy by analogizing Science away
penning works that are neither poetic or scientifc. 'Science'
magazine has fallen for this. 'Science' seems convinced when
talking of coveying science to the people that people are really
all for space cadet explanations of scientific results. Basically
it is some perspectives in 'Science', and then one falls off a
cliff. Next stop 'Star Wars'. You can join the Edge group and
blather on about how transformative science is and put foward space
admiral ideas about science is going to transform the future. You
can be a part of the dimming of the culture in the arts too. Look
at Pynchon's latest. Higher ups are Hegelians and as all is to be
negated, there is really zip there, so a dimmed down present is
more veracious, closer to absolute zero which neo-cons and
neo-liberals hold the Present to be. Or of course, you can find a
puppet mouthpiece to make videos for the Internets make contact
with people who have servers and then one is off. You are then
bitching in the minor leagues and that is life. There is the
temptation to troll 'for' multiple groups but when you get caught,
neo-con and neo-liberal groups have competing non-reconciliasble
interests at lower levels, you then have to pen a book full of how
changing one's position is the eptiome of being a conservative or
some such dreck otherwise the people who you were trolling 'for'
turn on one, there and no party invites etc and one becomes useless
to higher echelons and there are no 'words of wisdom' from higher
echelons and basically you are dropped. Rough on the puppets too
when you troll 'for' multiple groups as the puppets are being hit
from all sides. There is always backlash from trolling and, of
course, the puppets have point. There are strange people on the Web
but no one is taking the abuse a disgusting but completely legal
video with 40,000 hits generates absent a support system which you
can provide. The name Teabaggers was chosen deliberately for the
sexual connotations, engenders disgust all around. The point is
that posts and videos be disgusting. This engders turmoil and sets
up a crisis.
You won't be asked to break any statutes. The destruction of the
West is to be done by entirely legal means. You will be asked to
cheer on a disastorous war for example the initial invasions of
Iraq is 2003 for example but you most definitely won't be asked to
commit terrorist acts, break any statutes etc. The most that you
will be asked to do is assist with the passing of statutes so the
destruction of the West grows closer for example statutues
permitting torture, or be for huge deficits to break the safety net
such as was done under Reagan and be for similiar types of
legislation.
Those at the top get a Hegelian respect but at lower levels one
bitches. It is a Ponzi scheme where those at the top of the pyramid
get respect and those below bitch in the trenches to support those
at the top. The demand is made that one become a virtual zombie.
One just delivers a rhetoric which is line with an interest that is
acceptable to higher ups and that which is Present is ignored.
Those who treat others as virtual zombies become virtual zombies.
Conciousness of that which is is present dims i.e. one becomes a
virtual zombie. The key deal about the allowed interest is the
interest will be a lie, a hiding of the whole. The world doesn't
become rich in mood for those who sign up but of course, one is
suppose to give a fake 'happy face' emotional spin to the rhetoric
to conceal the destructivenss. For example, one gets huge points
for attempting in a supernice way to deconstruct ancient Greek
philosphy which is the glory of the West. Interests conflict for
neo-cons and neo-liberals and goals are basically destructive as
interests conflict fundamentally. Basically the interests are
destructive and serve the interest of the hiding of the Whole
rather than the obtaining of goals. The jollies of neo-cons and
neo-liberals being virtual zombies are derived from from sliding up
to those with conciousness and partaking of that consciousness to
get plaudits for 'Avatar' for example, the movie itself can give no
satisfaction to Cameron. Virtual zombies basically attempt to 'eat'
the conciousness of others. High neo-liberals and neo-cons
completely eschew morality. All there are is fake interests and the
ultimate goal 'a new state system' to replace what was the West.
Moral rhetoric is just a useful rhetoric for neo-cons and
neo-liberals, a way of hiding the whole. What is the proximate
justification of the agenda? We want it. Neo-liberals are one with
neo-cons on 'Contingency, Irony and Solidarity.' The ultimate
justication of course is to worship the Hegelian Absolute, to be
the universal solvent, to destroy the West. Basically the
motivation is religious.
Do people really think in terms of such large goals as 'destruction
of the West'? St Paul decided when there were only a 100 or so
Christians that everyone in the world should be Christian and now
there are a billion or two. Lenin in the cafes of Zurich decided
that Lenin best topple the Russian government. Trotsky worked on
worldwide revolution for 30 or 40 years or more. Only the widest
goals envelop the events of the days day after day. And of course
the Frankfurt school was more or less agreed that the West had to
go. It all went askew with Homer and Odysseus or some such
according to Horkheimer. For Horkheimer, the Enlightement was the
problem i.e. Being had to be concealed. This is other than to hold
large goals are necessarily effected but a large plot is
potentially able to marshall forces that would overcome a more
circumscribed goal. Microsoft holds that the Windows OS has to be
protected. Where does this logically stop? Steve Balmer apparently
holds this is as infinite goal and Micrsoft has grown rich treating
the goal as virtually infinite. Look at Amazon. Where does the
Amazon market place stop? There is no clear stop point. People work
on large plots all the time.
The 'ideas' of the 'The Idea of Justice' are quite influential.
Obama isn't adrift. Obama is in the grip of 'The Idea of Justice'.
Obama's Presidency is predicated on the Obama presidency, rather
than being about fixing the banking system or healthcare or
Afghanistan, as being about a build phase for neo-liberalism as
described by 'The Idea of Justice'. Obama was elected because Obama
was held to be liberal who could get the message across and rally
with oratorical skills, who was pro government with a small
footprint, pro a transparent government, pro a government that
dealt with large problems so as to avoid letting the nation slide
into an abyss, pro a government which regulated lightly but
efficiently and willing to lead towards those ends but Obama
delivers Hope end of story. Obama wasn't elected as benificent
overlord of the Senate, the Senate as it stands is completely
recalcitrant, but as someone who could lead the troops. The Senate
delivers zip and won't until pressured by the people. According to
Obama Obama's favourite philospher is Reinhold Neihbuhr whose major
point in 'Moral Man and Immoral Society' is that in dealing with
society more than just rational persuasion has to be used, what
works with the individiual doesn't work with group. Obama is trying
lead by rational persuasion alone. One might conclude that Obama is
up on exactly what Obama is doing. Alternatively, Obama has been
listening to people who proferred absolutely first rate advice and
now the rug has been pulled out from under Obama. I think the
latter is more likely
It looks like that the people who control the Democratic Party are
aiming for a party of 25 to 30 percent which supports a neo-liberal
or progressive lifestyle but which is completely unable to pass
liberal legislation, such as univeral health care along Medicare
lines which is cheaper, more transparent, less burdensome to the
consumer (one just hands over the card), more effective, more
popular and easier on corporations than the Rube Goldberg
contraption put together, which is going to be gutted in backroom
deals, whose only recommendation is that it is better than the
current system. The Democratic Party would affirm neo-liberal
lifestyles rather than be a political force where for example
evolutionists (certainly evolution is a fact) get together and moan
and groan about the creationists. Or atheists could get together
and talk about how 'Candide' said it all. Also of course the
Democratic Party is now trying to set up non-transparent unwieldy
bureacracies. Governmental regulation is absolutely required but
should be as light as possible. Cap and trade for example rather
than detailing what scrubbers are required for power plants. With
the health care legislation put foward there are going to be
bureacracies associated with corporations, insurance companies and
govermnent all out of sight all subject to lobbying etc. That is a
design feature rather than a bug to Dem pols. Medicare is
relatively quite transparent and hence a no go for Dems.
An essential boookReviewed by Efrain Gonzales, 2009-10-08
The new Sen's book shed ligth on the exstensive and deep problem of justice. I will recommend to my colleagues and graduate students in Human Development.
He should have reviewed the lawReviewed by John H. Ryskamp, 2009-09-27
Before Sen wrote this book, he should have had a Constitutional law
specialist go over with him the legal structure which governs the
topic he is discussing. It's too late for the book, but not for
you--or Sen!
He should certainly have read West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937).
This gave us the current political system of the U.S. That is the
scrutiny regime. The rule of the scrutiny regime is that policy is
valid as long as it is "rationally related to a legitimate
government purpose." This is called "minimum scrutiny." The
distinction offered between "political" and "social" facts, which
he discusses, comes from the Carolene Products case. He should have
read that too.
The important thing about the scrutiny regime is that when the
political system was supposedly given control over most facts (such
as housing and medical care), the individual was deprived of most
power with regard to those facts. That is the received history. The
ACTUAL history was significantly different, as I mention below. But
supposedly West Coast stands for the proposition that policy with
respect to most facts, is nonlitigable. And that is what Sen is
complaining about--rather ineffectually, as it turns out.
Thus, policy with respect to such things as housing (Lindsey v.
Normet) or medical care (DeShaney v. Winnebago County) cannot be
contested by individuals because those facts are considered to be
"social" facts. Such is what the Court supposedly held. Sen himself
seems to fail to grasp that housing can be argued as a goal or
ideal or policy, and it can ALSO be argued as a fact.
He also doesn't seem aware that the scrutiny regime is in the
process of being removed from power, and what is replacing it is
the "maintenance" regime. The doctrine of the maintenance regime is
that policy maintains important facts. I ought to know, because I
wrote the book articulating it: The Eminent Domain Revolt (New
York: Algora, 2006).
I stress "maintenance" because it is being given new emphasis, and
it proposes a different distinction than between "political" and
"social" facts. That is the important news. So we are out of that
ridiculous straitjacket of "political/social" facts. Sen is not
aware of this--he would have been, had he been educated in the
important cases.
If you read West Coast Hotel, you will notice that the minimum wage
law upheld in that case, is upheld because it contributes to the
"maintenance" of income. Even Carolene Products sustains
legislation because it contributes to the "maintenance of health."
Even Berman v. Parker--which seems to granted the political system
unfettered discretion with respect to eminent domain (it OKs the
destruction of housing in order to build housing!!)--grounds the
entire case on "maintenance."
Maintenance is a BIG DEAL.
What, in FACT, is maintenance?
This term "maintenance" was overlooked during the decades when
GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH was the only policy which mattered
politically, and the Courts simply bulldozed anyone who argued
differently.
But now suburbia is worried about the facts. So the factual content
of "maintenance" is the emerging power. Avis au lecteur.
You may wonder what the definition is of an "important" fact.
Ask, why is policy subject to "strict" scrutiny if it involves a
"political" fact?
The test for an important fact is found in the case which took
exercises of religion out of the political process and elevated it
to "strict" scrutiny: West Virginia v. Barnette. Read that case,
too.
You will see that, according to the Court, an important fact
is
1. a fact of human experience
2. which history proves
3. is unaffected by attempts to affect it.
In short, some facts tell us that we are dealing with an
individual. That was what the Court found with respect to exercises
of religion, they were taken out of the political system, nearly
absolute power over them was conferred on the individual.
Thus, the "Carolene Products footnote" (the case is from 1938)which
seemed to wall off "social" facts from a higher level of scrutiny,
did nothing of the kind. It did not attempt to say that certain
facts are not important. Quite the contrary. It attempted to BEGIN
the process of determining what ARE important facts, and it
suggested several, using an embryonic historical test which would
be elaborated later in West Virginia (that case is from
1943).
Quite the opposite from the history you are usually given. Sen
unwittingly signs off on the boilerplate, and quite inaccurate,
history. Which is why readers with a legal background, will simply
consider the book irrelevant. He should have educated himself more
thoroughly. Too late for the book but, again, not too late for
you!
History shows that the process of evaluating facts as to their
importance, has gone on right through all the decades of the
"scrutiny" regime. It is the history no one wants to talk about,
because it contradicts the received narrative, the narrative the
political system--which controls all the MONEY thanks to the
received reading of West Coast--wants you to accept. Facts are
always being litigated on the question of whether they are
important facts. At one time, gender legal equality, racial legal
equality, were NOT regarded as important facts. But the Court was
persuaded by evidence meeting the Barnette test, that they
are.
And you will ALSO see that such facts as housing and medical
care--these supposedly "social" facts which do not enjoy an
elevated level of scrutiny--are moving up the scrutiny
continuum.
San Antonio v. Rodriguez was a case in which the Supreme Court said
education merits only minimum scrutiny. In New Jersey, there is a
public education provision in the state constitution which was
supposed to stand for that proposition, and thus supposed to be
nonlitigable by individuals. Most states have similar provisions,
and most states still consider them nonlitigable by individuals
because they feel education only enjoy's "minimum" scrutiny.
Then the New Jersey Supreme Court, in 1973, held otherwise. These
are the Abbott cases, and they are all online.
Abbott is STILL under the court's jurisdiction, and you will
receive a full education in the law of "important" facts if you go
through those cases and see how the "important" facts analysis is
used time and time again to make more and more facts relevant in
legal proceedings.
Thus, education in New Jersey is no longer at "minimum" scrutiny.
So things do change.
Remember the important point about why the "scrutiny" regime has
lasted so long and why the political system wants it to continue:
under it, the political system controls all the MONEY.
What we are waiting for now is for the Court to simply recognize
what it had written before. Sooner or later, and I think sooner,
lawyers are going to demand that the Court answer the question:
what in FACT is "maintenance"? The question for the Court will
be:
Is [here put the policy in question] maintenance for purposes of
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
That's the certiorari question which will breach the wall of the
scrutiny regime, and effectively end it. Even asking the question
will prove the end of the scrutiny regime, and the beginning of my
regime, the maintenance regime. In effect, it will raise the level
of scrutiny for many new facts.
Which I think is what he was trying to argue in his book.
Powered by DevHub. Enhanced by Evri
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Directory | Contact | Advertise
This site is not affiliated with Amartya Sen. It is a fan site and part of the Epik.com direct navigation network. To contribute content to this site, please contact us
