Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the bearing of political philosophy on one’s personal behaviour. I review the ‘rich egalitarian problem’ posed by G.A. Cohen and consider a variant of this problem called the ‘rich socialist problem’. I argue that once we adopt a nuanced view of what adequate fidelity to one’s political principles requires there is a satisfactory solution to the rich socialist problem. Finally, focusing on Robert Nozick’s highly influential historical entitlement theory, I explain the ‘rich libertarian problem’ and explain why, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, it is more intractable than the rich socialist problem. Cet article analyse l’importance de la philosophie politique pour le comportement personnel. Je passe en revue ‘le problème de l’égalitarien riche’ posé par G.A. Cohen et considère un problème analogue ‘le problème du socialiste riche’. Je maintiens que dès que nous adoptons un point de vue nuancé sur ce que requiert la fidélité à des principes politiques, il y a une solution satisfaisante au problème du socialiste riche. Enfin, me tournant vers la théorie très influente de Robert Nozick sur l’habilitation (‘entitlement’) historique, je pose ‘le problème du libertarien riche’ et j’explique pourquoi, étonnamment, c’est un problème plus difficile à résoudre que celui du socialiste riche.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".