John Rawls: Property-Owning Democracy

[@FERGahDsSAK]

You have no idea how much you're appreciated. Thank you so much for the work and thoughtful approach you take to it.

[@brunoribaric9683]

Hey man. I just finished watching your video on Derria from 2 years ago, and was happy to see that you still regularly make videos. Thank you for the great content. I appreciate it.

[@rjgc4409]

This is much appreciated. In many countries, political philosophy is not discussed. Leaders are elected on the basis of charm and money, not on their philosophy of governance or economics. The Philippines is a classic example. Videos like this must stimulate political discussion. How should leaders think and act?

[@greenpea4239]

Could you do a video on the evolution of statehood? Like from the reforms of Cyrus to Augustus to the invading germans to the birth of liberalism. Maybe even a follow up video on the impact Rome had on it, specifically in our conception of imperialism, both colonial and market.

[@veredit]

As much as I want to be objective, I have to say that this is the best channel on KZbin. Can't understand for the life of me how can this only have a few dozen likes. Please do not stop.

[@unmysteriousstranger]

9:39. And there we go, that's the crux of this entire thing. It's basically just another way for the intelligentsia and owner class to escape their own downfall, just like social 'democracy' and just like this property-owning 'democracy'. Under pressure they'll cave to labour a little in their demands for a fairer cut, but not enough that it would threaten their own positions. Take Finland for example; it became a social democracy and gave a few minor concessions when it was next door to the USSR, since it feared an open revolt against liberalism, but reversed all that through privatisation when it felt the threat was at end, circa 1991.

[@politeiaentelecheia5679]

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Maybe people just think, it is the right and best way, the way they do it. And maybe they do have their good reasons for that

[@voxomnes9537]

@@politeiaentelecheia5679 What a non-response.

[@sierra1513]

​@@politeiaentelecheia5679 typical lib deflecting

[@codacreator6162]

The phrase, "equally distributed" connotes a manual distribution which raises questions about who controls the means of distribution, but with the right rules in place, nobody need control it directly. We got pretty close following WWII. We need to remember that. Labor unions, for all their faults, are a necessary first step in the right direction. They represent on a micro scale what democracy is supposed to be at the macro level.

[@raymondkasar7167]

Please do a content on Hannah Arendt, if you may. Thank You! I love all of your contents.🖤

[@AnaLuisa-jg7kz]

thank you so much for your videos!! i'm from brazil and like to watch them when i'm studying philosophy, you've been so helpful!!!

[@lolahayes7091]

There are several arguments in these comments that use "what people educated in economics say" as the basis of credibility. I'm just here to remind all that that is not what constitutes a sound argument. Especially as in one comment below someone states that "people educated in economics don't support socialism", but then in a later comment states "how to work with the inefficiencies of capitalism is just, what an economics student learns" thereby stating that the economics education is insufficient to make an argument for how to work with the inefficiencies in socialism.

[@alynames7171]

I know this is a year late, but I wanted to say I appreciate your comment. We definitely seem to overly fetishize the opinions of orthodox economists when it comes to questions of social, political, and cultural organization. It's important to remember that economics, like any other empirical field, relies on a framework of subjective assumptions to provide a basis for using instrumental rationality to solve "how" problems within that framework. The "bigger pie is always better" idea provides a way to optimize for economic growth, but says nothing about whether a society organized around that principle is the best society. The people posting those comments you mentioned should see the previous video on Rawls where he rejects the automatic primacy of that kind of utilitarian calculation. As you said, economists could just as easily focus on trying to work out the kinks of socialism rather than the kinks of capitalism. That the orthodox focus of economics today is on the latter is not an argument that it necessarily ought to be.

[@graemelaubach3106]

Love your videos!!!!! These topics are so important, especially now when the world seems to be becoming sicker and sicker every day. Keep it up dude

[@eorobinson3]

Also, Please do Michael Polanyi!

[@lumene2826]

Thanks!! This is gonna help my political philosophy exam!!

[@J_Alrighty]

7 land monopolists watched this video. Great work. Thanks!

[@marybarker4925]

Thank you for making these videos.

[@libbyb8075]

my philosophy exam starts in 7 minutes this is helping me tremedously

[@Rudi361]

For people who are more interested in this economic system, I recommend the video "Property Owning Democracy and the Role of the State: Big State, Small State, Smart State Or....?" (kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqmYo5ZomZiYkMU) by Alan Thomas. There he discusses the macroeconomic policies, the distinction between an egalitarian property-owning democracy to welfare state capitalism and to property-owning democracy as a form of rentier capitalism (by Reagan and Thatcher). He also highlights the aim of Rawls, that his principles of justice as fairness need to be met on "background institutions" of a basic structure of a society, so that: -the domination of one agent by another is structurally impossible. -the distribution of income is fair by manipulating the macro economy, so that the micro economy functions kinda independently but is influenced by the macro (by the dispersion of capital - whoose ownership gives a very high amount of income - the income distribution also gets different and fair). -the social class doesn't impact your chances of influencing politics or that it doesn't exist in the first place.

[@tormunnvii3317]

I had jumped the gun on the last vid on Rawls it seems. I was surprised when you didn’t critique his Liberal tendencies in that video, but I see you were saving it back for it’s own video. Rawls frustrates me because you can see he recognises the same issues we on the Left do, yet, he falls at the last hurdle to just embracing some form of Socialism. I think, like many Liberals, as shown at 9:30 min, he ultimately is an elitist snob who cannot conceive of what Marx called a ; “Free association of men”, that is, a classless society of humans who organise the production and distribution of wealth freely amongst themselves. To put it another way, there were loads of early abolitionists and suffragists who agreed with equal rights for blacks and women under the law, but, they would never countenance the thought of these groups having meaningful, decision making power on account of their “limited capacities”. Today, we laugh at the idea that these marginalised groups are intrinsically any less capable than white men, but, when someone advocates for working class people to be similarly empowered, the same concerned liberal types will cringe away in disgust. This is just classism. That all being said, Rawls is still a respectable and eloquent philosopher who is useful in many ways, highlighting inequalities a strong one amongst them.

[@politeiaentelecheia5679]

Those with education in economics also do have - usually - very good reasons for viewing communism as a failed endeavour. Capitalism is a highly complex and very decentralised system with a proper incentive structure and quite an amount of free choice at its heart ... and what the world has seen so far of any communist or socialist creation just didn't have at least most of that

[@tormunnvii3317]

@@fealdorf Do you believe people have the potential to develop roughly comparable capabilities adequate to perform the required tasks reasonably expected of them, given enough time and resources invested into their education from birth? If you do, then we don't really disagree fundamentally. If you don't, then would you mind elaborating?

[@tormunnvii3317]

@@politeiaentelecheia5679 "proper incentive structure"....you most be trolling? have you noticed that the human species is killing itself off via atmospheric warming and bio collapse?

[@politeiaentelecheia5679]

​@@tormunnvii3317 Right, externatilities aren't automatically calculated into the price of a good in capitalism. And also right that the price of CO2 hasn't internalised the CO2's external effects, as well. But there is also an age old solution for this problem in economics called Pigouvian taxation, but which indeed needs to be implemented by the state. So one might argue, capitalism in its purest form would have at least this disfunction and probably many more. And sure, capitalism has it's many defects and faults, but on the other hand, what should pure capitalism look like? Anarcho-capitalism? Well, I don't know too many economists, who would argue for that and externalities are a good reason for why there aren't so many of them. But on the other hand, capitalism is a functioning system always trying to realize the most efficient ways and it's methods and advantages should rather be used and worked with than discarded and shamed. How to work with the inefficiencies of capitalism is just, what an economics student learns

[@Rudi361]

How John Rawls proposes POD is, that he is indifferent on the question if there should be any workplace democracy. He leaves the question open. There is no a priori reason why there shouldn't be any. What he says instead, that it isn't a legal necessity to make workplace democracy mandatory. I think he would argue your point on the same kind he argued why his principles of justice only demand, that political institutions have to be democratic. His principles are to be met on the basic sturcture of society, but that doesn't mean that every institution like for example the family as an institution has to have democratic organisation. Women's rights must of course be implemented because they are political citizens (this means member of the basic structure of society) like everybody else and the institution of family needs to take this into account. It doesn't say though how the institution itself must be organized. Political institutions however must be democratic, since there the freedoms can be achieved and only through the participation of all citizens it assures that every one of them has his personal freedoms assured. If you use this thought consistently in institutions of workplace it should meet the rights of every citizen and therefore workers too, since POD is supposed to make political partizipation of workers sturcturally possible, they can assure worker rights. If the personal rights meet justice as fairness in the basic structure, which are made possible by giving access of universal capital and giving everyone political rights, the worker then has a right to contest these personal rights in his workplace. Of course, workplace democracy can achieve the same goal (or may overreach the goal even), which is why Rawls think his principles are met in market socialism too. The question, if workplace democracy should be a necessary institution, will need to be answered outside of original position, that is to say it is outside of justice as fairness. Calling John Rawls a classist is hillarious btw. He says the basic structure needs to see the people in it as free and equal citizens, who all are part of a fair system of cooperation and deserve reciprocity. In POD he also expects that there won't be any classes, since the contrary often means the primary good of self respect isn't distributed fairly (which according to him is the case in welfare state capitalism).

[@TheWayofFairness]

All of our problems begin with unfairness

[@eorobinson3]

Also, check out Jose Ortega y Gasset!

[@RobertMunro]

It very relevant for today. Would love to see one on Hannah arednt and the banality of evil.

[@eorobinson3]

also Mikhail Bakunin and Ludwig Wittgenstein!

[@FILOSOFIANEANDERTAL]

Great video, saludos!!

[@kokopelli314]

The ideals and structures of agrarian socialism can and have been co opted by a vertically integrated supply chain. The unspoken mantra of foot soldiers of an industrial "green revolutionary" army is "One Acre, One Vote" This is a complex discussion.

[@JS-dt1tn]

I am a total noob to Rawls, and poly sci as a whole so disregard my comment if it is foolish, but nevertheless I feel like this unyielding formulation to tip the scale as a constant struggle to satisfy what is best for everyone, is, eventually going to favor the extremes of redistribution, and then the type society it would reveal would be unable to give up the advantages received once distribution occurred, as the flux of constant redistribution will become unbearable and cumbersome. I strongly agree with Zizek where he predicts a new style of authoritarian rule, but he clearly wishes to explain how the use of the word "authoritarian" today cannot fully encapsulate this new style, will predominate.

[@jabel6434]

Too many words burry the truth... Nom meaning this disrespectfully, but... These ideas have been known and talked about for at leas a century. Distributism, Social credit (of the C. H. Douglas kind) , Binary economics of Louis Kelso, People's' Capitalism of James Albus, The Ownership Solution of Jeff Gates... and many more proposals for radical socio-economic reform. Yet absurd and obscene inequality marches on. What more do we need in addition to more erudite analysis and words?... Pausing for a comment before giving an answer to that rhetorical question...

[@thumperhunts6250]

IMO votes should be only given to people with land inside the nation and those with land inside the nation should pay a 6% annual ground rent on that land.

[@MUSTASCH1O]

I feel that Rawls' ideas, brilliantly formulated as they are, underplay the problem of taxes. Taxes are a use of force. If a person starts poor and builds up his wealth through voluntary trade, why is it fair that this wealth should be taken from him by force? Coming from a libertarian standpoint, I think Rawls' ideas present a strong case for encouraging voluntary charity, not for the construction of a politically enforced welfare state.

[@impossiblynice]

Because force is apparent in the libertarianism. How is private property protected? How do you justify private ownership of land baring the freedom of others to use/benifit from it? The privaledge and value of the land come from society. You pay society for that. Also, take a person with little/no property. Since ther can be no liberty in the absence of all property as there is nothing to trade with. Why should there liberty not matter? At the end of the day untetherd liberty is a pipe dream, as much as eternal life is.

[@MUSTASCH1O]

@@impossiblynice I agree, I am not an anarchist. There should be minimal government, and protection of people's rights and property is one of the specific roles of a government. The point is to maximise freedom not abolish force entirely. As a libertarian I say we need minimal government to protect citizens' rights and property, to protect citizens from those who would force them to do their bidding, and to provide a justice system to uphold those rights. Within those limits, which are intended to maximise liberty within a community, I think government enforced welfare should be minimal. People wouldn't stop caring, they would just give their charity where it is needed most within their own communities.

[@benneychhiba1814]

This American conception of libertarianism does not mean protecting peoples property and right. It means less taxes and regulation for the people who control your society so they can monopolize the means of production and force. The reality is that many of our societies don't have the systems in place that facilitate equality of opportunity, government needs to reallocate resources (through tax) to facilitate that, rights that protect freedom that doesn't harm each other, and have rules which prevent exploitation and harm (regulation). Why should some have more liberty and access to political system than others? Did they earn it? No they didn't, increasingly Americans are being exploited of their savings, their land, their stake in society, their time, their freedom, your society runs on debt. It's not about big government, small government, it's about effective and participative organization, it's not about left or right, it's about the powerful and the powerless.

[@kris8165]

I wish people would stop vomiting words! Be clear,concise,and speak plainly! That accent is hard enough to listen 😅

[@smooa1889]

Communism plzzz

[@peterclark4685]

I am still looking for any _Science_ that indicates Private Property is a valuable concept to our species. Our *biology* points to a tribal-responding, cooperatively-minded alpha with a strong sense of self that has to endure a lengthy journey of self-discovery before we are ready to contribute. We also have *Medical Science* to support the fact that it would be unwise to use some things in common (underwear, shoes, hats, toothbrushes...) and *experience* has taught us that it would be better if we had direct, personal ownership of the tools required for production: but where is the line? Of course I am asking the adults who take the occurrence of life on Earth seriously. Living on a random planet in a Cinderella zone within a powerful and hostile universe had better lead to some deep thinking. Getting into a non-existent heaven sounds like only snake-oil salesmen will ever qualify. Where I'm at currently is large (castle, mansion) homes for up to about 200 people each with grounds to be mostly self-supporting, connected to others. The youth begin life in 24/7 creches that become boarding schools when they are ready and they are fairly free to move around until their self-discovery journey settles on something. Many 'things' are dealt with in a library fashion with the added provisos that users (a) have a competency certificate (b) the capacity to repair any damage and (c) willing to return them to the 'library' ready and clean enough for immediate re-use. Any of the 'toys' of life would fit into this. So if your life ambitions were to: water ski across the Pacific, fly a gyrocopter over Everest, wear the Hope Diamond at your wedding, etc you will need to build up such a profile of yourself and be part of making those yachts, wings, engines so that they are available. Of course you would also play a part in feeding, entertaining, minding and cleaning for your community. When the last government closes its doors this may be possible. Because the 'self' is dependent on membership of a community, that excellence leads to maximum use of your short life this state cannot be described by any current ideology apart from Humanism. What are we? Is there a why? Who are going to be the game changers? Could it be you? When we raise each child to fulfill their potential that may be a common outcome. In a species capable of genius to me that seems to be the only Value we can possibly have.

[@yungcoolie]

Yeah too bad those ideas are oxymoronic

[@andrieslouw3811]

Good idea, bad practice

[@andrieslouw3811]

Land value can grow, but it can also decrease. Especially when centralization becomes a disease like in south africa of the last 20 years

[@growingmelancholy8374]

Waste of a video. Do a video on Merleau-Ponty.

[@unmysteriousstranger]

I know, that would've been actually worth it. The Visible and the Invisible was a damn fine book.