Disqus - Latest Comments for TStockmann

Re: Not That Kind of Libertarian: Puzzles of Children’s Rights

TStockmann — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 05:40:23 -0000

But seriously… having a kid and not taking care of it automatically entitles the kid to be raised by the taxpayers?

Consider the very peculiar grammar of this question as a clue to where your analysis may be falling short.

Re: America Should Be More Like a Single-Minded Firm Devoted to Killing People

TStockmann — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 05:27:00 -0000

Society is not an organism, not a family, not a firm, not an army.

It's an invariably tendentious mistake to treat "society" as having any linguistic tranparency at all. It seems to me that Margaret Thatcher famous comment "There is no such thing as society" should be taken as a Wittgensteinian invitation rather than an easy jibe.

And I'm so sorry that Tia had an attack of the vapours.

Re: Holbo on Rorty

TStockmann — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:20:07 -0000

By way of contrast, if Lant Pritchett succeeds in even slightly opening up wealthy labor markets to workers who lost the passport lottery, he will have done more to end needless cruelty than a million Rortys. But then, Lant Pritchett believes that the effectiveness of his favored means to that end of reducing suffering is a fact of the external world. And it is. That’s powerful.

And simpleminded, grounded in nauseating piety and a shared if arbitrary sense of fellow feeling - like most "powerful" messages. That's how narrative works and probably why Rorty wasn't so good at it himself.

Re: Holbo on Rorty

TStockmann — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:59:38 -0000

Hardly an exhaustive set of choices. Another possible alternative: that an involuntary collective like a nation can't have a moral interest in promoting the wellbeing of nonmembers. But I propose that simply for illustrative purposes. Your first alternative is interesting in that it establishes whether I can be placed within your hortatory narrative, to use Rorty's approach.

Re: Holbo on Rorty

TStockmann — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:01:19 -0000

The question waa badly phrased, since I indicated that I objected to the psturing of the rhetoric rather than the sentiment itself, although it would be fair to observe that it is more common to object to posturing when you don't agree with the sentiment.

In specific terms, the level and type of "suffering" alleviated doesn't particularly stir my sympathy, and I haven't a clue whether the complicated end result of the program would be a net positive over time even in those terms. You don't have to be hostile to the prnciple of chest-thumping appeal to end up annoyed by the thumping. Simply being unmoved by it will almost guarantee that result.

Re: Are Our Soldiers Dying in Vain?

TStockmann — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:47:50 -0000

You could be more hard-hearted and say that each American soldier's death makes it a little less likely that America will engage in similar invasions, at least for a period of time - not meaningless, simply unintended. If Iraq had been more coimpletely pacified with relatively light American casualties, then my guess is that we could have expected a sequel in short order.

Re: How Not Metaphorical Is “Countries as Clubs”?

TStockmann — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:12:41 -0000

"My complaint is that none of them say much at all about the justification of the principles that determine who becomes a citizen — becomes a legitimate part “owner” of the huge plot from which others may be excluded — and who does not."

Like any other organization, it is determined by the wishes of current owners, based on any reasons they feel sufficient, whether or not you recognize them as "principles." Of course you can engage in as much rhetoric as you may wish to shift that decision. Why is there any difficulty here?