Test 3 Flashcards

True or False: According to Locke, in the state of nature nobody has any rights

False

Who has a right to punish in the state of nature?

No one, only “god”

According to Locke, somebody leaves the state of nature and enters society only when…

When they agree with other men to unite in a community.

Does Locke think that one can give consent to be subject to the laws of a government without ever making a formal declaration or signing a contract?

Yes, through tacit consent. “If a man owns or enjoys some part of the land under a given government, while that enjoyment lasts he gives his tacit consent to the laws of that government…“

What sorts of consent does Locke discuss?

Explicit and tacit.

What role does consent play in Locke account of the legitimacy of governments?

“…it may be answered that the most despotic governments in the world rest upon that very principle, viz: the consent of the strongest party. These governments are formed simply by the consent or agreement of the strongest party, that they will act in concert in subjecting the weaker party to their dominion.”

Who wrote No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority?

Lysander Spooner

When did Lysander Spooner live?

1808-1887, 19th century.

Was Spooner a big fan of the North in the civil war?

No.

 Spooner goes through a number of options about what “government resting on consent” might mean. What options does he discuss, and why does he reject many of them?

If “government by consent” means anything, according to Spooner, what does it mean?

“The separate, individual consent of every man who is required to contribute, either by taxation or personal service, to the support of the government. All this, or nothing, is necessarily implied, because one man's consent is just as necessary as any other man’s.“ In order for a government to be legitimate, every man must give their actual, individual consent.

He says in our reading that “no middle ground is possible on this subject.” What does he mean and why does he think this?

“No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either “taxation without consent is robbery,” or it is not.” He believes that a government is either based on voluntary consent of every individual or it is a form of coercion. 

Does he think that we have a natural right to defend our property from the “tax gatherer?” Why or why not?

Yes, if the individual has not consented to be taxed, he has the same natural right to defend his property against the taxgatherer. 

What does Spooner mean when he says that “the ballot either signifies a bullet, or it signifies nothing?”

He means that means that a government's authority rests on its power to enforce its rule through violence, not on the people's consent. Voting is not a valid basis for a legitimate government because it is a contest of force, and the will of the majority is ultimately enforced by violence against the minority. 

 Spooner says that some governments are “a mere conspiracy of the strong against the weak.” What sort of government does he have in mind, and why does he think this?

Spooner is referring to governments that are not founded on consent but rather use force and control to maintain power over the majority, which he argues are forms of tyranny.

 In what ways, according to Spooner, is the government like a “highwayman” and in what ways is it different? Which is less bad, and why?

Both a government and a highwayman use threats to take people's money ("your money or your life"), but the government is worse because it uses the pretense of legitimacy and protection to justify its actions.

Brennan discusses four elements necessary to consensual transactions. What are these, and how many of them does Brennan think the government meets? Be clear about why he thinks the government fails to meet the conditions.

Brennan discusses that the four elements to consensual transactions are (1) the individual preformed an act that signified consent and that the results would not have occurred had consent not been given, (2) the individual was not forced to perform the act, (3) had the individual refused, then the act would not have taken place, and (4) that the dealer was not entitled to take payment unless they hold up their end of the bargain. He believes the government does not meet these conditions because it often acts without genuine consent and exerts coercive power over individuals.

Do Brennan and Spooner agree on whether we consent to our government?

Brennan and Spooner agree on the idea that government should be based on consent, but they differ in their assessment of whether the government truly obtains consent from individuals. Spooner believes that the government fails to gain legitimate consent, while Brennan acknowledges that some consent exists but is not sufficient to justify government actions.

True or False: Brennan argues that the practice of unrestricted, universal suffrage is unjust.

True

What is unrestricted, universal suffrage?

Unrestricted, universal suffrage is the right of all adult citizens to vote, without limits based on gender, race, property ownership, literacy, or other discriminatory criteria.

Brennan says that forcing someone to submit to the decisions of an incompetent electorate would be like…

“Just as it would be wrong to force me to go under the knife of an incompetent surgeon, or to sail with an incompetent ship captain, it is wrong to force me to submit to the decisions of incompetent voters.”

True or False: His own article shows that Brennan is a sexist, white-supremacist, who longs for the good old days when only white men could vote.

False

Does our own form of government already include epistocractic elements? (If so, which ones?)

Yes, such as voter age restriction and not letting felons vote.

Does epistocracy come in just one form? If not, be ready to give examples of (or identify) more or less extreme versions of it.

Epistocracies can come in many versions, from less extreme to more extreme. A less extreme example would be weighted voting while a more extreme would be restricted suffrage based on testing. 

Brennen claims which of the following: (a) Even though restricting the vote in the past, for example from women, was unjust, there might be good reasons to restrict the vote; (b) The fact that it was unjust to restrict the vote in the past, for example from women, shows that it is always unjust to restrict the vote

A) Even though restricting the vote in the past, for example from women, was unjust, there might be good reasons to restrict the vote

What is an epistocracy (in Brennan’s terms)?

Epistocracy is a political system where political power is distributed based on knowledge or competence.

True or False: Brennan argues that moderate epistocracy is the ideal form of government

False, “I will not argue that a moderate epistocracy-or any kind of epistocracy-is the most or ideally just form of government My goal is limited: I want to argue that, all things remaining equal, in contemporary democracies, restricted suffrage would be a moral improvement over unconditional universal suffrage“

Why does Brennan think universal suffrage is unjust?

“Many of my fellow citizens are incompetent, ignorant, irrational, and morally unreasonable about politics. Despite that, they hold political power over me. These can staff offices of great power and wield the coercive authority of the state against me. They can force me to do things I do not wish to do, or have no good reason to do.”

Does Brennan think that the competence principle applies to juries? Does our government currently have practices about juries that show they are concerned about the issues brought up in the competence principle?

Yes, Brennan believes that the competence principle applies to juries. Yes, the U.S. government and legal system have multiple practices regarding juries that show concern for the issues raised in the competence principle: Potential jurors are selected at random from all citizens within a geographic area. However, some individual jurors are disqualified because they exhibit bias or certain kinds of incompetence.

What is the following principle called: “It is unjust to deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property, or to significantly alter her life prospects by force or threats of force, as a result of decisions made by an incompetent or morally unreasonable deliberative body, or as a result of decisions made in an incompetent and morally unreasonable way”?

The Competence principle.

Because of the competency principle, Brennan thinks that what controversial claim is true?

That universal suffrage is unjust (?)

What is Brennan’s argument that democracy is unjust?

Brennan argues that democracy is unjust primarily because it violates his "competence principle," He contends that most citizens are politically ignorant, misinformed, or irrational, and allowing them to vote results in bad government outcomes that harm innocent people. Also, that citizens cannot merely "walk away” from incompetent laws made by individuals in power, as they are usually backed by force. 

 Be able to explain the following, and how they relate to Brennan’s argument: The Truth tenet, The Knowledge tenet, The Authority tenet, and The Anti-Authority Tenet

Truth Tenet: There exist correct answers to political questions

Knowledge Tenet: Some citizens possess more knowledge about these answers than others

Authority Tenet: Because some citizens know more, they should be granted more political authority

anti-authority tenet: Citizens who are morally unreasonable, ignorant, or incompetent about politics should not have the authority to make political decisions for others

  Brennan, for the sake of argument, accepts that restricted suffrage is (a) just or (b) unjust?

B) Unjust

Brennan thinks he is fighting an uphill battle in arguing against unrestricted suffrage.  Why?

He explains that most of us were taught when we were young that democracy is awesome and universal suffrage is great. Because of this, we will not be happy to hear anyone call this into question.

Brennan thinks that voting-age laws are unjust because…?

Voting age laws are problematic because they draw an artificial bright red line between the competent and incompetent in a way that reasonable people could object to. This way of distributing political power fails the Qualified Acceptability Requirement. 

True/False: Brennan is sure that epistocracy would have better results than democracy

False

What is PHA?

Preferential hiring and admissions

Which group has been the greatest beneficiaries of PHA according to Hausman?

Women.

Hausman discusses a number of different good consequences that are sometimes discussed in arguments in favor of PHA. What are these?

Defenders argue that PHA has changed the American population's conception of what minorities and women can aspire to and that PHA has lessened racial disparities.

Hausman discusses a number of different bad consequences that are sometimes discussed in arguments against PHA. What are these?

PHA may harm those it intends to benefit by undermining their self-confidence or by putting them in positions beyond their abilities in which they are bound to fail. Critics have also argued that those favored by PHA are often incompetent, and PHA thus undermines the credentials of beneficiaries, incites racism, and diminishes economic efficiency

Why does Hausman think we should not rely on these good and bad consequences in arguments about PHA?

Because the results of numerous studies that have been done are inconclusive. “These arguments would be powerful if their factual premises were true. But it is hard to know what the effects of PHA have been, and there is little evidence supporting any of these claims about the consequences of PHA”

Is the racism in reverse argument an argument in defense of PHA or against it?

Against

Why does Hausman think we should not focus on stories (whether horror stories of abusing policies or heartwarming stories of successes) in arguing about PHA?

Becauss they are not serious evidence, relying on isolated incidents can lead to weak arguments that can be easily dismissed by counter-examples.

What are the premises of the racism in reverse argument; what is its conclusion?

1. It is wrong in hiring or admissions to take into account anything other than the applicant's qualifications.

2. PHA takes the applicant's race into account.

3. Race is almost always not a qualification.

4. Thus, PHA is almost always wrong.

Does Hausman agree with the premises of the racism in reverse argument? All of them? Some of them (which ones)? None of them?

Hausman says that premise 2 is obviously true while 3 is debatable and 1 is false. 

 If Hausman rejects one or more of the premises, why does he do so? What considerations does he discuss that argue against the truth of the premises?

Premise 3 in contrast is debatable, because diversity among students and employees arguably serves legitimate goals of universities and some firms. Premise 1 can be rejected because there are situations is hiring that require more than just qualifications such as: Veterans are given preferences on civil service examinations and in college admissions. Or an owner of a small grocery store hires his teenage daughter (rather than a more responsible teenager) to deliver groceries after school because he wants to keep an eye on her.

What is the point of the three cases he discusses on page 480? What function do these cases play in his argument?

Hausman discusses these three cases in order to show how premise 1 of the racism in reverse argument is invalid as qualifications are not always the only thing to take into account when hiring someone.

Does Hausman say that the racism in reverse argument is a valid argument? Does he think it is a sound argument?

Hausman says the argument is valid but not sound.

Hausman thinks that sometimes race is clearly a qualification for a job. What example of this does he give?

“A director making a movie of the life of Martin Luther king commits no injustice in refusing to consider white actors for the lead.”

Lisa Newton says “The quota system, as employed by the University of California’s medical school at Davis or any similar institution, is unjust, for all the same reasons that the discrimination it attempts to reverse is unjust.” Why Does Hausman disagree with this?

There is no moral prohibition on taking factors other than qualification into account in hiring and admissions, and in any case race is sometimes a qualification.

What is the rectification argument? What are its premises and what is its conclusion?

1. Those who commit injustices owe their victims damages.

2. Massive injustices have been perpetrated against African Americans.

3. Thus, those who committed these injustices owe damages to their African-American victims.

What is the rectification argument? What are its premises and what is its conclusion?

1. Those who commit injustices owe their victims damages. 

2. Massive injustices have been perpetrated against African Americans.

3. Thus, those who committed these injustices owe damages to their African-American victims.

Does Hausman think that there are problems with the rectification argument? If so, what are the problems?

Yes. First, to rectify past injustice, one needs to identify the perpetrators of injustices and the victims of injustices and to determine the magnitude of the damages the perpetrators should pay to the victims. Second, rectification of an injustice is designed to restore people and their circumstances to that condition that would have obtained if no injustice had been done. Rectification in this sense for the wrongs of slavery is impossible. Third, identifying those who should pay compensation and those to whom compensation is owed would lead to a divisive inquiry into the virtues and vices of our ancestors, when they came to the United States, whether they conserved or squandered ill-gotten gains, and so forth.

Does Hausman think that an argument from reparation faces the same problems as the argument from rectification? Why or why not?

No, Hausman does not think that an argument from reparation faces the same problems as the argument from rectification. Rectification requires restoring the world to what it would have been, which is impossible for historical injustices where both perpetrators and victims are long gone. Reparations, on the other hand, are a practical issue because they face problems with identifying who should pay and who should receive the payment, as well as being racially divisive and impractical to implement. 

What is Hausman’s view of PHA? What sort of argument does Hausman give in order to defend his view?

Although he believes it will level the playing field, both arguments in favor of/ against it fail.

What analogy does Hausman use to explain his argument, and how is the case he discusses supposed to be like PHA?

Hausman uses a school teacher analogy with two sets of one good/one bad teacher for 1st and 2nd grade while using a lottery to decide which student gets the good/bad teacher. After completing 1st grade with a good/bad teacher, the school must decide whether to give the students who had a good teacher a bad teacher for 2nd grade in order to let the students who had a bad teacher a better teacher in 2nd grade. It can appear that PHA both promotes and impedes equal opportunity.