One of the popular arguments for democracy as opposed to expert-driven, sophiarchist government is the notion that democracy is good for the same reasons that juries are good as opposed to judges. David Estlund makes just such an argument in Democratic Authority on the basis that all reasonable people can accept the jury model but not a system of judges due to uncertainty regarding the knowledge of the judges and that, by extension, all reasonable people can accept democracy but not government by experts. Today I aim to challenge this line of argument with a more critical examination of judges and juries and how we use them.
Tag: politics
Occupy Wall Street and the Rolling Jubilee
I have been a long-time sceptic of the Occupy Wall Street movement–its reluctance to coalesce around any specific issues or solutions to said issues, its lack of structure, hierarchy, and organisation, and its fondness for Rousseauian direct democracy all have been and remain major turn-offs for me. There’s reason we remember Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mandela; good protest movements require good leadership, specific goals, and specific means. However, I have discovered one strand of OWS that is not completely useless. In fact, it may provide an answer to one of the most serious problems afflicting our economy–high levels of household debt and governments unwilling to do anything about it.
Continue reading “Occupy Wall Street and the Rolling Jubilee”
Fiscal Cliff Insanity
Back in August, I wrote a piece called “Fiscal Cliff Madness” about the set of consequences produced by the law enacted by the government that will severely reduce spending and raise taxes. Today, new research has surfaced from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that gives us a clearer idea of just what exactly the fiscal cliff might do to the United States’ economy if it comes to pass. The new information is even more dire than the information we had in August, and so the “madness” has now been upgraded to “insanity”.
The Obama Economy
It has become a common sense view that the US economy has performed poorly under Barack Obama. The assorted punditry are all trying to explain how Obama managed to win the election despite this fact. Perhaps they should stop to consider that perhaps this fact is not a fact at all? Well, if no one else is going to do it, it might as well be me.
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?
Benjamin Studebaker 