The public has spoken, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has responded by cancelling the New York City Marathon amid a massive outcry. I, however, have a question, not merely for the mayor but for everyone whose reaction to the mayor’s previous announcement that the marathon would continue was one of visceral condemnation–why? What is the reason that the marathon needed to be cancelled? Who benefits from the cancellation? Not the runners, many of whom have spent a lot of money to come to the city only to find that the marathon has been cancelled. Not the New York economy, which takes in over $300 million each year as a result of the marathon. The people adversely effected by Hurricane Sandy, you say? How do they benefit? Everyone seems to assume that the cancellation is for the benefit of the victims, but I’m not seeing it. Don’t hang me just yet–I have reasons.
Author: Benjamin Studebaker
Intellectual Hipsters: Sceptics
Today I would like to return to a concept I’ve referenced once previously–intellectual hipsters. Intellectual hipsters are people who want other people to believe they are intellectual, philosophical people, but have not put in the work of really considering the ideas they embrace. This results in philosophical fads where a bunch of people jump onto the bandwagon of a facile idea. Often they do not even credit the originators of the idea, but treat it is as if it were some brilliant revelation they stumbled upon in their “reflections”. They assume that anyone who does not express agreement with the position just has never thought of it before, when in actuality usually the idea was considered and dismissed some time ago by people who, you know, actually think about the implications of the philosophical positions they take. Today’s hipster idea? Scepticism.
Marxism’s Quarrel with Reality
Today I had an interesting lecture on GA Cohen, a socialist political theorist. Cohen believes that Rawls’ theory of justice is more egalitarian than Rawls himself believes it to be–he has an interesting reason for this, but one which is ultimately flawed in a way that sheds great light on the problems with Marxism more broadly and with the utopian left as a bloc.
Unreasonable People
Many of the popular theories of justice claim that all “reasonable people” in a given circumstance would rationally agree to them, and therefore they are just. Rawls, for instance, claims that all reasonable people can readily agree to Rawls’ principles of justice (in order of priority: everyone has as much liberty as possible without infringing on the liberty of others, all people have equal access to opportunities, and inequality is only justifiable provided that it benefits the worst off–“maximin”) because he thinks all reasonable people readily acknowledge that all people are free and equal. This leaves a question open–who are the unreasonable people? Racists, sexists, ethnocentric people, all of those are obviously unreasonable under this theory, but what about conservative theorists? Are they unreasonable, and, if so, what does that mean for theories of justice?
Romney and Disaster Relief
In the wake of the recent hurricane, new attention is being paid to this clip from the primary debates in which Romney condemns federal funding for disaster relief:
While the hurricane has drawn attention to this quip, its intellectual value, positively or negatively, is independent of this particular situation and deserves to be judged on its own merits, and that is precisely what today’s post is all about–the merits of the notion that the federal government should do less.
Benjamin Studebaker 