DISQUS

bob mcmanus · 4 years ago

"What are the properties of the most desirable kind of social order? (Desirable to whom? To us, silly.)"

1) Desirable to whom is not a silly question, or certainly wouldn't have been thought silly by the Spartans, for example. And different social orders might be desirable for different circumstances, war, famine, the need for very rapid development.

2) Sparta may provide an example of another problem, in that once norms and prejudices are instilled, they can be hard to change when external circumstances change.

dannarruca · 4 years ago

I think you're trying to say that liberal order is neutral in regard to the way people live their lives. The state is a slot machine: insert taxes and you get to pick your flavor of candy bar (I don't like computer software analogies because I don't understand computers). But how neutral is it? I think that's part of what Posner is saying. You're going to have public standards against cockfighting, abortion, etc. These aren't determined by philosophers or in seminars, they are determined by instinct, emotion, tradition, etc. You are always going to have public standards that aren't derived from some bundle of basic rights minimally sufficient for social order. We should think of democratic regimes as basically vending machines: the people insert taxes, pull the lever on the voting machine, and get what they want or what they are forced to accept.

Matt · 4 years ago

Dan - I think what's Will's saying is that the liberal order is neutral in regard to how its operating principles are originally derived.
Just because some social conventions are irrational or groundless, they can still be valid in that they provide the consensual regularities that support the order.

Matt · 4 years ago

...and I apologize if I mistakenly abbreviated dannaruca to "Dan."

dannaruca · 4 years ago

It's Danna. I love how you make it sound so official and scientific: "how its operating principles are originally derived." Oooh, show me the proof! It's interesting that Jefferson began the Declaration in this way: "We hold these truths to be self evident." There seems to be a large element of willfullness there. He could have just said: "These truths are self evident."

monkyboy · 4 years ago

Interesting comparison to a computer program.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the 'design document' for America and then the Founding Fathers hammered out the 'code'. There were some obvious flaws in the original code, America 1.0, slavery and limited sufferage for instance, but they didn't crash the program. In fact, the original program was put together so well, it's still in use 200+ years later.

When there was enough 'users' to request a 'feature change', women who wanted to vote, for example, the 'code' was updated.

The level of abstraction needed to create an original program, when a country is founded, requires the skills of polital philosphers, equivilant to a software architect. Architects tend to make poor coders, because they worry too much in the abstract.

I think this is Posner's point. Subsequent changes to the code don't require such high level thought. It only requires a large number of people wanting the change, and a fairly low level coder to make the change in a way that doesn't change other users experience in a negative way.

Speaking of which, where exactly are the large numbers of 'users' calling for a change in Social Security?

jack* · 4 years ago

The analogy of the computer program is similar to evolutionary psychology's ESS: evolutionary stable strategy. While strategies can evolve by chance, successful ones are combinations that are stable -- that is to say that resist exploitation by mutants. Most work by cooperating with individuals like themselves and competing with individuals unlike themselves.

The analogy is pretty good, as far as it goes. It does tend to pit demographic cohorts against one another, and makes no allowance for social or philosophical progress.