Rousseauians and Benthamites
Jan. 15th, 2006 11:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cincinnatus_c
High temp today, here: -6. Dewpoint then: -14. High dewpoint: -14.
High temp today in TO: -8. Dewpoint then: -16. High dewpoint: -15.
Low today on the balcony: -10.6. High: -6.9. Currently: -10.6.
Warm front very, very slowly edging up from the southwest, presumably accounting for it being slightly warmer here than in Toronto (it's currently -4 in Windsor, -6 in London, -12 here and Toronto).
Another thing I read in the Globe the other day: an article about the relatively recent development of ultra-discount airlines in Europe, which have, among other things, created a small army of air commuters between Poland and the UK. There's an amazing disconnect between, on one hand, the post-September-11th moves to make air travel more difficult and cumbersome, and, on the other hand, these discounters moving to make it as easy as taking the bus.
Existential dilemmas at the polls, and all that: what I still can't ever really get my head around are the voters (and these are most of the swing voters, the ones the parties, and the media, are always most interested in) who tally up the costs and benefits to them, personally, of each party's promised bundle of goodies, and vote for the one that comes out highest on the benefit side.
Back when I was at McMaster, Jeremy Waldron was coming to speak, so Sam Ajzenstat had us read a piece of his in our political philosophy seminar. The piece was something to do with constitutionalism and judicial review and why they're bad (and the UK should continue to eschew them), but what really stuck with me from it was Waldron's classification of voters as either "Rousseauian" or "Benthamite": Rousseauian voters vote according to what they perceive to be the general will of the state, or, at least, what they perceives to be good for the state in general; Benthamite voters vote according to what's best for themselves as individuals. The theory justifying Benthamite voting (which Waldron prefers) is that if everyone tries to get what's best for them personally, then, overall, you're most likely to get what's best for everyone, on balance.
I grew up Rousseauian, of course, and those people who tally up the costs and benefits of the bundles for them, they're Benthamites.
That Wikipedia entry on Waldron, by the way--Waldron is, really, a radical democrat (of a certain sort), as opposed to a straightforward liberal. (When he came to speak at Mac, he was on about how wonderful it was when the Quebec referendum results were veering back and forth on either side of 50%--and we were like, dude, it was so totally not.) That's one of those things that I see and think, hmm, maybe I oughta change that ... but I don't really know anything about it, so.... (I did, however, set up a Wikipedia account yesterday so I could ask whether Stephen Harper's birthday is really April 20th. Turns out, actually, it is.)
High temp today in TO: -8. Dewpoint then: -16. High dewpoint: -15.
Low today on the balcony: -10.6. High: -6.9. Currently: -10.6.
Warm front very, very slowly edging up from the southwest, presumably accounting for it being slightly warmer here than in Toronto (it's currently -4 in Windsor, -6 in London, -12 here and Toronto).
Another thing I read in the Globe the other day: an article about the relatively recent development of ultra-discount airlines in Europe, which have, among other things, created a small army of air commuters between Poland and the UK. There's an amazing disconnect between, on one hand, the post-September-11th moves to make air travel more difficult and cumbersome, and, on the other hand, these discounters moving to make it as easy as taking the bus.
Existential dilemmas at the polls, and all that: what I still can't ever really get my head around are the voters (and these are most of the swing voters, the ones the parties, and the media, are always most interested in) who tally up the costs and benefits to them, personally, of each party's promised bundle of goodies, and vote for the one that comes out highest on the benefit side.
Back when I was at McMaster, Jeremy Waldron was coming to speak, so Sam Ajzenstat had us read a piece of his in our political philosophy seminar. The piece was something to do with constitutionalism and judicial review and why they're bad (and the UK should continue to eschew them), but what really stuck with me from it was Waldron's classification of voters as either "Rousseauian" or "Benthamite": Rousseauian voters vote according to what they perceive to be the general will of the state, or, at least, what they perceives to be good for the state in general; Benthamite voters vote according to what's best for themselves as individuals. The theory justifying Benthamite voting (which Waldron prefers) is that if everyone tries to get what's best for them personally, then, overall, you're most likely to get what's best for everyone, on balance.
I grew up Rousseauian, of course, and those people who tally up the costs and benefits of the bundles for them, they're Benthamites.
That Wikipedia entry on Waldron, by the way--Waldron is, really, a radical democrat (of a certain sort), as opposed to a straightforward liberal. (When he came to speak at Mac, he was on about how wonderful it was when the Quebec referendum results were veering back and forth on either side of 50%--and we were like, dude, it was so totally not.) That's one of those things that I see and think, hmm, maybe I oughta change that ... but I don't really know anything about it, so.... (I did, however, set up a Wikipedia account yesterday so I could ask whether Stephen Harper's birthday is really
