Philosophy Talk: The Blog

More on the Luck of the Draw

Hello All,

It's taken me a couple of days, but I am finally putting in an appearance here. Many thanks to Ken and John for having me on the show, and I hope people found the topic intriguing.

Anyone is interested in thinking further about lotteries might want to check out the a new series of books being published by Imprint Academic. The series is entitled "Sortition and Public Policy." ("Sortition" refers to selection by lot--particularly political officials, as was the standard practice in ancient Athens.) There are a number of interesting titles in the series, including a reprint of a little book entitled A Citizen Legislature, which argues that we should select the U.S. House of Representatives by lot. (I have written a new introduction for the reprint, which will appear shortly.) For more on the series, visit http://www.imprint.co.uk/books/sortition.html.

For what it's worth, I'm cautiously optimistic about the idea of bringing a little ancient Athens into the modern world by selecting officials by lot. I do think it would require a lot of further changes--i.e., we couldn't just select Congress by lot, and keep everything else the same. We would have to do a lot more to ensure that, for example, the officials selected have access to all the information they need. But that's the sort of practical problem that any serious change to the status quo must confront.

More serious, I think, is the theoretical challenge. In the modern world, most people take for granted that being a democracy means that the people elect their officials through voting.  But this wasn't the ancient understanding. Aristotle said that in a democracy, rulers were selected by lot, while in an aristocracy, the "best" are chosen through elections. (We don't usually think of our elected officials as being our "best," but that's another story.) That may be a little extreme; there's no denying that there's something democratic about elections. But there's also something democratic about lotteries, and explaining how 2 such radically different procedures can both be democratic is an important and interesting question, IMHO.

Hope that provides some food for thought. If you'd like to see more about my work, just visit my website at http://www.stanford.edu/~pstone

The Luck of the Draw: Live Blogging!

posted by Ken Taylor

Today's episode is about Lotteries -- not the state sponsored gambling type, but the type that allocate scarce goods and also burdens. Think of housing lotteries, school admission lotteries, and the draft lotteries. In Ancient Greece many political offices were alloted by lottery. Our question is whether and when lotteries are a just distributive mechanism. Sometimes they seem just the thing. The draft lottery, for example, seemed like a good way of keeping the privileged and connected from gaming the selective service system. But suppose tax rates were assigned by lot, so that your rate of taxation depending no on your ability to pay but on random chance. That seems like an absurdly unjust outcome.

One thing I'd like to ask our guest, Peter Stone, about are whether there are any general principle that explains when and why lotteries are just. It will also be interesting to explore whether lotteries should be used more or less in our social lives. I know that John Perry is an advocate of using a lottery for college admissions. He thinks it would save a lot of time, labor and money and that it would be more fair.

I read a sort of tongue and cheek article that suggested we might be better off choosing senators and representatives by lot. Though the article was written in a somewhat kidding tone, the point it made was worth taking seriously. If office holders were chosen by lottery, that would certainly go a long way toward taking the money out of politics. There would be no need for interminable and expensive campaigns.

There is even an argument in favor of what's called lottery voting. Put all the votes for all candidates or options in a hat. Choose one. Whatever vote is chosen decides the issue or candidate. Such a procedure would give all voices an equal chance of being heard. Isn't that the very essence of democracy?

Obviously, there's a lot to talk and think about. Hopefully, you'll join in during the show. We'll have somebody monitor the comments on this blog entry during the show and if you make a good one, we'll try to include it on air.

Philosophy and Film: Live Blogging

posted by Ken Taylor

I'm sitting in my study at home listening and thought I would get this blog back on track. Right now, a repeat episode of Philosophy Talk s about to air, even as I type. The episode is Philosophy and Film, with noted critic, David Thomson, author of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film. I thought that maybe a good way to get the show started would be to do a little bit of live blogging. I'll get it started by quoting our original blurb description of the show:

Film is a distinctive and distinctively powerful art form. Cinematic representations move us in ways that few others do. Film has also proven to be an outstanding vehicle for conveying philosophical ideas. John and Ken explore both the philosophy of film and philosophy within film with David Thomson, author of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film.

Would be glad to know your thoughts about the show as it develops in the comments section. I'll try to keep the conversation going.

Join in.

Ken