Ironically Michael Sandel, a philosopher, espouses a philosophy that is dollar based. It is noteworthy that he lacks any suggestion as to how to conform citizens to his idealism. Quote: a "just society .......... must find a way to cultivate in citizens a concern for the whole, a dedication to the common good." Pg 263. He didn't suggest a method because none exists. The food for thought gained from the philosophers tongue is a lesson in how little it takes to fool oneself.
I found very little in Sandel's book to suggest that his philosophy had anything to do with contribution (production. The focal point is distribution and the implication is that less for all is better then more for many. Greed is described as a characteristic of capitalism rather than one in the human genome. Sandel sways the reader to believe intention is more important than outcome. For example, a greedy individual may simply work harder, but his hard work counts for little because his motivation is greed.
Realistically the population relies on only a small share of the populace for consumable goods. These dependents include non-productive members such as children, government mandated workers and non-working members who derive support from a spouse, inheritance, saving, retirement or a stipend. Unfortunately, these dependents are often encouraged by politicians who, for votes or campaign contributions, offer government grants and assistance under the cloak of taxing the rich. The result is to add burdens that bear few benefits and detract from productivity.
Only 1 in 5 members of the population are productive. Obviously producers must generate far in excess of their own consumption. Their profits are gains on the surplus and much of that is put back to enhance production. As you can see, math often frustrates logic and the philosopher's judgment. In the private sector human desires, even greed, are likely to enhance the productivity from which everyone gains. In contrast, greed in a political position is simply a demand for a greater share with no contribution. Communitarianism is thus simply an avenue for the greedy and not the needy.
When we realize that four fifths of the population relies on the other fifth, we can distinguish who is the prey and who is the plunderer.
Sandel's logic is to alter human characteristics to conform individuals to a system, rather then seeking a system that conforms to the plethora of human characteristics. Communists sought to enforce a system wherein contribution was ignored and only existence was a consideration in allocating distributions. For this to work, citizens need to conform to characteristics prescribed by the state. The only state where this succeeds is in the insect world where, for example, bees and ants perform particular functions throughout their lives.
The quest to create the greatest good for one's self requires the greatest service to others, whereas greed in government requires the pillage of others.
Sandel argues against the greatest good and for philosophical solutions to economics using extreme arguments such as cannibalism and the feeding of Christians to the lions. This ignores the potential of a system of freedom and individualism. He is unconcerned that the burden of a politician's demands, whether righteous or not, are passed to individuals at the lowest level of production and not rich owners. Physical work creates the product. Just as nobles passed the king's tax to the surfs, a business owner must pass costs that fall on the worker.
Sandel's arguments for a greater tax on the rich such as Michael Jordan, conceals the burden that falls on the individual worker. It is more likely that in a system powered by the individual that the least of all citizens will fair better then the greatest in a system powered by government. The exception, of course, is for those living in the employ of government. This is the lesson in fall of the USSR and the decision in China to transform into a capitalist system.
Communitarianism like socialism is merely a scheme to transfer consumption to those chosen or favored by the political establishment. The Socialist goal, like the communitarians', requires the plunder of a workable system. As I have said, it is a cancer that grows within a host and eventually results in death.
I found very little in Sandel's book to suggest that his philosophy had anything to do with contribution (production. The focal point is distribution and the implication is that less for all is better then more for many. Greed is described as a characteristic of capitalism rather than one in the human genome. Sandel sways the reader to believe intention is more important than outcome. For example, a greedy individual may simply work harder, but his hard work counts for little because his motivation is greed.
Realistically the population relies on only a small share of the populace for consumable goods. These dependents include non-productive members such as children, government mandated workers and non-working members who derive support from a spouse, inheritance, saving, retirement or a stipend. Unfortunately, these dependents are often encouraged by politicians who, for votes or campaign contributions, offer government grants and assistance under the cloak of taxing the rich. The result is to add burdens that bear few benefits and detract from productivity.
Only 1 in 5 members of the population are productive. Obviously producers must generate far in excess of their own consumption. Their profits are gains on the surplus and much of that is put back to enhance production. As you can see, math often frustrates logic and the philosopher's judgment. In the private sector human desires, even greed, are likely to enhance the productivity from which everyone gains. In contrast, greed in a political position is simply a demand for a greater share with no contribution. Communitarianism is thus simply an avenue for the greedy and not the needy.
When we realize that four fifths of the population relies on the other fifth, we can distinguish who is the prey and who is the plunderer.
Sandel's logic is to alter human characteristics to conform individuals to a system, rather then seeking a system that conforms to the plethora of human characteristics. Communists sought to enforce a system wherein contribution was ignored and only existence was a consideration in allocating distributions. For this to work, citizens need to conform to characteristics prescribed by the state. The only state where this succeeds is in the insect world where, for example, bees and ants perform particular functions throughout their lives.
The quest to create the greatest good for one's self requires the greatest service to others, whereas greed in government requires the pillage of others.
Sandel argues against the greatest good and for philosophical solutions to economics using extreme arguments such as cannibalism and the feeding of Christians to the lions. This ignores the potential of a system of freedom and individualism. He is unconcerned that the burden of a politician's demands, whether righteous or not, are passed to individuals at the lowest level of production and not rich owners. Physical work creates the product. Just as nobles passed the king's tax to the surfs, a business owner must pass costs that fall on the worker.
Sandel's arguments for a greater tax on the rich such as Michael Jordan, conceals the burden that falls on the individual worker. It is more likely that in a system powered by the individual that the least of all citizens will fair better then the greatest in a system powered by government. The exception, of course, is for those living in the employ of government. This is the lesson in fall of the USSR and the decision in China to transform into a capitalist system.
Communitarianism like socialism is merely a scheme to transfer consumption to those chosen or favored by the political establishment. The Socialist goal, like the communitarians', requires the plunder of a workable system. As I have said, it is a cancer that grows within a host and eventually results in death.
Back to all reviews by this member
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
