“Veil of Ignorance” . . . and how to choose a pretty good society? :-)

[Multicolored Lemur]

Using the Veil of Ignorance to Create a Just Society

Today was one of my favorite Saturdays – Dan Ariely’s column was in the Wall Street Journal! I’ll offer my perspective on his advice in a later post, but what I want to focus on i…

jborden.com

You don’t know whether you’re going to be rich or poor,

black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American Indian, Pacific Islander,

I mean, favored ethnic group or not quite so favored . .

whether you’re abled-bodied or maybe you have a disability,

whether you’re smart, thoroughly average, or with a cognitive challenge, perhaps even on the broad autism spectrum which has both its pluses and minuses, and definitely some challenges,

.

.

.

All this,

Which societal policies and practices do you choose?

Not knowing who you’re going to be.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Interesting concept. Here's a description of the diagram from your article:

The image shown above is a symbolic depiction of Rawls’s veil of ignorance. The citizen making the choices about their society make them from an “original position” of equality and ignorance (left), without knowing what gender, race, abilities, tastes, wealth, or position in society they will have (right). Rawls claims this ensures the person will choose a just society.

Source: https://jborden.com/2019/09/07/using-the-veil-of-ignorance-to-create-a-just-society/ (which actually sites a Wikipedia article here...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position_

All this,

Which societal policies and practices do you choose?

This is hard to think about or it could just be my expecting for these laws to be different than what I'd rather advocate for now.

I'd still want rules that would maximize equality, or equal opportunity, for all.

Of course, the Golden Rule is still a must have. I'd do away with all tax loopholes which tends to the rich paying little to no income tax. If they donate, let it be from the heart without any financial incentives in return. I'd have the same penalty for crimes across the board instead of leaving it up to the discretion of prosecutors or a judge. I'd want everyone to have a good civics education so that anyone is equip to serve in public office.

This is basically a color-blind and class-blind society I'm thinking of here.

Interested in seeing what everyone else would do.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

This is basically a color-blind and class-blind society I'm thinking of here.

This is a piece of cake in theory. In practice, quite a bit tougher!

Okay, this whole discussion is a lot more abstract than what I’m usually familiar with. Perhaps I can start with what I was taught in school of why the Constitution of the United States is better than most constitutions —

separation of powers, and

accountability.

————————

And to these we might add the more modern value of —

transparency.

And I’d personally add rapid-cycle feedback, and then we might really be onto something!

With economics, often feedback is delayed, just by its very nature. And that makes it a lot harder for citizens to “vote their pocketbook” in a way which means something.

I’d also add that if there are a lot of jobs which are good or above, that makes all kinds of social justice issues much more solvable.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

the Constitution of the United States is better than most constitutions —

separation of powers, and

I agree with that. Definitely helps to prevent tyranny. I view the government and civilians as being distinct classes but with an inherent power chasm. I think that chasm could get so big that it has the same effect of inequality in the negative sense, where the people end up not getting what they want from government. I think the only way to fix a situation like that is to take away power from the government and give more to the people. Perhaps when elected officials fail for years to pass 80-20 issues, let the people be able to cast their vote on that instead of having to wait 4 to 6 years for the next election.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

I'd do away with all tax loopholes which tends to the rich paying little to no income tax. If they donate, let it be from the heart without any financial incentives in return.

So, instead of a half-hearted decision with someone else’s money, have it be a whole-hearted decision with their best money, right?

Of course, the people running charities will tell you the number of dollars does matter.

I urge you, go conservative in the classic sense of no abrupt changes. Instead, go medium steps and watch how it works out. For example, 5% a year over 20 years. The first year you donate 95% of charitable donations, the next year 90, etc. Of course, once you’re down to 20%, the next tax bill can get rid of it entirely.