Maximum Freedom

 In Private Government, there seems to be some implication that the goal is to maximize freedom through tradeoffs between the three types of freedom. 

    If all three types of freedom, positive, negative and republican, are valuable and "there are sound reason to make tradeoffs between them (46), then there seems to be some goal for trading off between them. Furthermore, private government is worth discussing not just because it exists and is needed to supplement the "impoverished vocabulary" of public discourse, but also because it is in fact a bad thing. It gives too much authority to the employers. This seems to be implying that too much authority infringes on people's freedoms.

    However, we also know that the reduction of some freedoms are ok provided they increase others by more than the decrease. So, "too much authority" given to employers means that the decrease in freedom outweighs its gain and that is the problem. I want to ask Anderson to what extent this can be carried out. Is maximizing freedom the goal, and if its not what makes private government a problem.

    Is the goal to maximize freedom for each each person? Or, if its a calculation based on society as a whole, it would imply that if the substantial decrease in all freedoms of one person would increase freedoms in enough other people to outweigh the decrease then it should be done. Or, must we adopt a similar strategy to Rawls and place a baseline "amount" of freedom for each person that cannot be sacrificed, and from there, tradeoff between society as a whole?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even...
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to...
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...
Read more