CONTEXT: I was watching a video from an American Falangist explain the difference between fascists like himself vs Nazis. Put simply to paraphrase him.

Fascism puts the state above all else. Nazism puts “the race” above all else.

It got me thinking about other political ideologies that could be described in such a way.

QUESTION: That’s why I’m curious… What would your reductions be?

Such as Communism puts equality above all else. Neoliberalism puts corporate success above all else. Anarchy puts freedom above all else.

No doubt there’ll be both advocates and critics of each ideology disagreeing with my attempts.

On that. I’m aware many will consider their favoured political ideology too intricate and nuanced to be reduced in such a way. I’d ask such folks to sit this conversation out as I don’t want the whole discussion to be about the the premise it’s self. I like the concise brevity of the above statements. I think it’s a great way of getting to the core of an ideology. Not mention being more inclusive and approachable to the casual voter.

Link

Abstract:

Natural resources, especially land, play an important role in many economic problems society faces today, including the climate crisis, housing shortages and severe inequality. Yet, land has been either entirely neglected or seriously misunderstood by contemporary theorists of distributive justice. I aim to correct that in this paper. In his theory of original acquisition, Locke did not carefully distinguish between the value of natural resources and the value that we add by laboring upon them. This oversight led him to the mistaken conclusion that labor mixing gives the laborer an entitlement to both the improvement and the resource. I explain how Locke's false belief that the proviso was satisfied in his time was the fundamental cause of this error, and I develop a novel reading of the proviso using the law of rent. Instead, we should think, following Henry George, that the community is entitled to the economic value of natural resources, because the community created the value of resources, not the individual improver. I discuss an argument from George's "Progress and Poverty" that self-ownership is actually inconsistent with (rather than the ground for, as Locke thought) private appropriation of natural resources. This is because a necessary condition of our equal rights as self-owners is having free access to natural resources. If we do not have such access, George argues that natural resource owners can extract surplus value from their users (though I show why Marx’s belief that capital owners can also extract surplus value is mistaken). Nozick’s infamous argument that taxation is morally on a par with forced labor proves too much for his purposes, since George shows that payment of economic rents to natural resource owners is also morally on a par with forced labor. I then develop my own view of original acquisition, inspired by George. The self-ownership of improvers gives them an entitlement to improvements that they create. But the self-ownership of everyone else precludes an entitlement to natural resources value. Natural resource rents should not be enjoyed by those who improve the resource, but rather, by all community members in proportion to the share of demand for natural resources they are responsible for. Finally, I move from ideal theory to the real world, and discuss how George’s land value tax could be implemented in practice, and what its beneficial effects would be. We should be interested in this policy for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the two countries that have implemented the most extensive suite of Georgist policies—Norway and Singapore—are the two wealthiest countries in the world (excluding micro-states and tax havens). Since the land value tax is not inefficient like other taxes, it is unique among social and economic policies in that it has the potential to both greatly increase and more fairly distribute society’s wealth.

Nearly 80 years ago, Karl Popper gave a spirited philosophical defence of the Open Society in his two-volume work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. In his new book, J. McKenzie Alexander argues that a new defence is urgently needed because, in the decades since the end of the Cold War, many of the values of the Open Society have come under threat once again. Populist agendas on both the left and right threaten to undermine fundamental principles that underpin liberal democracies, so that what were previously seen as virtues of the Open Society are now, by many people, seen as vices, dangers, or threats.

The Open Society as an Enemy: A Critique of How Free Societies Turned Against Themselves interrogates four interconnected aspects of the Open Society: cosmopolitanism, transparency, the free exchange of ideas, and communitarianism. Each of these is analysed in depth, drawing out the implications for contemporary social questions such as the free movement of people, the erosion of privacy, no-platforming, and the increased political and social polarisation that is fuelled by social media.

In re-examining the consequences for all of us of these attacks on free societies, Alexander calls for resistance to the forces of reaction. But he also calls for the concept of the Open Society to be rehabilitated and advanced. In doing this, he argues, there is an opportunity to re-think the kind of society we want to create, and to ensure it is achievable and sustainable. This forensic defence of the core principles of the Open Society is an essential read for anyone wishing to understand some of the powerful social currents that have engulfed public debates in recent years, and what to do about them.

Watch the full conversation with Professor J. McKenzie Alexander here (link).

J. McKenzie Alexander is Professor of Philosophy at the London School of Economics. His research interests include evolutionary game theory as applied to the evolution of morality and social norms, problems in decision theory, formal epistemology, the philosophy of social science, and the philosophy of society. His most recent articles include “On the Incompleteness of Classical Mechanics” (forthcoming in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science) and “Accounting for Groups: The Dynamics of Intragroup Deliberation” (co-authored with Dr Julia Morley), published by Synthese.

His new book is currently available as a free Open Access download from the London School of Economics Press.

Eliot A. Cohen: “Sometimes politics resembles one of the weirder branches of modern physics or a fantasy version of biology. Time may seem to run backwards; solid things turn out to be insubstantial; black holes swallow up the light; the dead may walk the Earth, ghouls crawl out of cleft rocks, velociraptors not only reappear but learn to speak and, alarmingly, open doors. https://theatln.tc/6Ph6eJIg 

“That is how American politics feels at the moment. By and large, however, Newtonian physics and traditional biology still apply, and that is worth remembering as we watch the Trump administration’s circus of transgression, vindictiveness, and sometimes mere folly.

“Like most administrations, including those of considerably more sedate chief executives, that of the 47th president has decided to way overinterpret its mandate. The brute facts remain: Donald Trump received a plurality of votes (albeit a decisive majority in the Electoral College); the Republican Party is holding on to the House of Representatives by a hair and has a slim majority in the Senate. The administration may hate civil servants and seek to undermine their job security, but it will discover that it needs them to keep airplanes flying safely, the financial system functioning, drugs safe for use, and food fit for consumption.

“Gravity still works—if somewhat unreliably. Politicians who overinterpret narrow wins in a divided country get pulled back to Earth, usually by the midterms. But not just that—the federal system of government gives a lot of power to the states, and although Congress has become anemic and irresponsible, most state governments have not. And so the governor of Florida has declined to appoint the president’s daughter-in-law to a vacant Senate seat, and the governor of Ohio has passed on one of the president’s more socially awkward tech billionaires for another. These are small but interesting indications of gravity reasserting itself.

“Lawyers, by the thousand, in and out of state governments, create their own gravitational field. The poorly paid lawyers of the Justice Department can sue only so much, and the Supreme Court will turn out to be—as it did during the previous Trump administration—less reliably Trumpist than the president would wish. (The most pro-Trump justices are Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the conservatives he did not appoint.) Even the appalling sweeping pardons of the January 6 rioters and insurrectionists have their limits. If any of those people attempt violence in Maryland or Virginia or anywhere else outside of D.C., they will discover that assault and other crimes there are tried in state, not federal, courts. And the presidential-pardon power does not reach state prisons, which means that some ghouls will go back to their cleft rocks if they go out looking for revenge.

“Newtonian physics also has it that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Precisely so. Pardon every criminal who clubbed a police officer, and police unions will be unamused. Impose high tariffs, and working-class voters will encounter higher prices and possibly unemployment. Blow up the national debt to cut taxes, and sooner or later the markets will react. Give way to vaccine skepticism, and epidemics will break out. Turn the intelligence community and military upside down by purging women and other undesirables, and you will produce not only big, embarrassing, consequential failures but also pushback from those large populations, their families, and those politicians who still care about national defense.”

Read more here: https://theatln.tc/6Ph6eJIg 

Best friendly and popular translation of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics?

Hi everyone, I'm looking for a really nice translation of Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics. While I appreciate the answers suggesting literal and faithful translations, I would like to see more popular and modern translations to teach a class.

Have a nice week

I’ve been reading Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, and he argues that inequalities are acceptable if they benefit the least advantaged. Is he essentially defending the status quo of capitalism with some tweaks? Or is his framework meant to push for a more fundamental restructuring of society?

Sometimes when we talk about the changes (or transformations or revolutionary reforms really) needed in our society today, they seem so massive and out of reach, we settle for the status quo (as destructive as it is), discouraged from taking action.

The short post Stages for Creating the Changes Desired in Society really simplifies all it takes to successfully create the massive change we desire in our society today, and it's not as out of reach as we might imagine.

Change leaders and aspiring change leaders are encouraged to take a look, and incorporate that into their planning, and also explore relevant partnerships and resources to work towards the ultimate goal of improving our society and the countless lives depending on that, through concrete action and not just conversation.

I'm inspired by, and ever in support, of all such actions for real change/impact.

Ps: Article taken from r/FutureOfGovernance.

Heiner Müller (1929-1995) was one of the most important German playwrights and a cultural beacon of the GDR (German Democratic Republic, the socialist eastern German state). Heiner Müller repeatedly saw Atlantis in works that inspired him. But there was no mention of Atlantis in these works. And Heiner Müller repeatedly used Atlantis as a cipher. But this cipher never really had anything to do with Plato's Atlantis.

Nevertheless, Heiner Müller has – unintentionally, and ironically – hit Plato's Atlantis quite well. But see for yourself in my new article "Heiner Müller and Atlantis".

Greetings, my dear political philosophers!

I need your help... Again 😁 As some of you already know, i am working on a new blog series about "territorial disputes in the americas." i want now to have my readers involve by having an engaging session on my blog where we will turn our attention to the fascinating and often contentious world of international territorial disputes in the Americas.

Would you please give me your view, advice and, if you want, your preference. Also, please feel free to spread the word with like minded people interested in solving conflict (rather than creating more).

I am excited to involve my readers in deciding which current, ongoing disputes between two or more sovereign states or communities we should explore in depth. Their participation will help shape our journey into understanding how these conflicts continue to shape the geopolitical landscape of the continent.

In selecting our case studies, I will harness the multidimensional framework I introduced in my 2023 book, “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory.” This approach will guide our analysis through a blend of disciplines such as law, political science, and international relations. We’ll look at the roles of various agents—ranging from individuals to states—playing parts as hosts, participants, or observers, all within the contexts of domestic, regional, and international spheres. This method allows us to appreciate the complexity of territorial disputes by acknowledging the influence of different normative systems, from legal frameworks to moral and religious considerations, encapsulating what I call a “pluralism of pluralisms.”

I invite readers to engage with this exercise by choosing from the questions listed below. Their selections will not only direct our research but also enrich our understanding of how these disputes reflect broader themes of sovereignty, identity, and resource control. Whether it’s a landlocked nation’s quest for sea access, historical conflicts involving indigenous rights, or contemporary issues over resource-rich territories, readers' choices will help us delve into the heart of these disputes, offering insights into the intricate dance of diplomacy, law, and politics that defines international relations in the Americas.

You’ll find below five distinct questions about international territorial disputes in the Americas:

1. What case of a landlocked country in the Americas seeking access to the sea would you like me to study?
2. Which historical border conflict involving indigenous land rights in the Americas should I delve into?
3. Can you recommend a case where an island or archipelago is contested among multiple nations in the Americas?
4. What contemporary issue involving resource-rich territories in the Americas would you find compelling to explore?
5. Which dispute in the Americas, where colonial legacies play a significant role, should I research for historical context?

Thanks! And please join the conversation, and let’s unravel the mysteries of the Americas’ territorial disputes together!

My mentor was a direct student of Leo Strauss, and through him I met and studied with numerous other Straussians. In addition to inspiring me to pursue political philosophy as a lifelong pursuit, I am forever indebted to them for learning what a truly "text first" careful reading means, the value of reading in the original languages, and for teaching me to write in plain language rather than tarted up academic jargon.

With that said, I never once agreed with anything they personally believed and promoted as a result of their interpretations. To be direct, they are extreme conservatives with a secret - they don't actually "believe" in conservative values, but they choose to hide behind them as a means to an end - ie the preservation of a "civil" society that allows the elite few to continue to study dangerous ideas in private.

Sd the story goes, from Plato/Socrates we learn that philosophy is dangerous to the foundations of a society (custom/tradition/religion) and it's better to hide behind esoteric writing so as not to undermine the things that bind us together and stabilize civilizations. Philosophy is meant for select, private individuals who share dangerous thoughts through indirect, obscure "hints" and difficult metaphors. Even the ideal polis of the Republic is founded on the noble lie.

What does this mean and how does it look in the history of philosophy? It means Socrates accepting his fate for corrupting the youth to save philosophy. It means Descartes and Kant add in "God" so as not to attract undue attention from the Church. It causes Spinoza, the first honest philosopher, to flee for his life several times because he didn't heed the warnings of history. And, of course, makes Nietzsche the most dangerous of all thinkers when he gets rid of all pretense.

What Strauss and his followers want is a stable society based on religious traditions, all the while knowing they are in fact total bullshit. Meanwhile, you will find no better teachers of Nietzshe and Heidegger than a Straussian because they in fact agree with them, but don't trust that a civilization can survive without its fictions.

This is why Bloom stayed in the closet his whole life and others applauded him for it. It was a noble sacrifice.

So here we are. A world falling quickly into utter nonsense where reason and science and even the rule of law are ignored and we are led by a kakistocracy.

Are Straussians smiling?

In the last four months I have been working on a creating a philosophy podcast which you all might be interested in. Each episode is a chat about an article from the SEP — The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hence the title, ChatSEP. Moreover, as you might guess from its title, I've used some AI tools to help create these podcasts, specifically Google's NotebookLM which I recommend you all check out. (This is not self promotion, I make no money from the podcast in any way). For more info on how I generated these podcasts see this post.

The podcast has already covered about half of the SEP articles (800 of 1803) which includes a lot of content relating to Political Philosophy. Eventually this podcast will cover every topic in philosophy. Here are some links to recent episodes which I think you all might enjoy:

Niccolò Machiavelli

Spinoza’s Political Philosophy

Ramsey and Intergenerational Welfare Economics

Jeremy Bentham

Adam Smith’s Moral and Political Philosophy

Karl Marx

Among many more! I'd be happy to answer any questions about the podcast or my workflow in making them.

Welcome to r/MHoP! Do you have an interest in politics, debating, or even writing potential legislation and press releases? Well this is the place for you! We are just setting up, so now is the time for you to join and get involved! Join our Discord here: https://discord.gg/9xUtQQGgb8, and you can go to our main subreddit at r/MHoP!

The Madman in the Marketplace of Democracy

Have you ever heard of the madman who, on a bright morning, lit a lantern and ran to the marketplace, crying out unceasingly: “I seek democracy! I seek democracy!” As there were many people standing about who had grown indifferent to democracy, he caused great amusement.

“Is it lost?” someone said. “Has it strayed like a wandering sheep?” another asked. “Or has it gone into hiding? Does it fear us now? Has it taken refuge overseas or emigrated entirely?” The crowd laughed, their voices rising in mocking chorus.

The madman leapt into their midst, glaring at them with wild eyes. “Where has democracy gone?” he cried out. “I will tell you! We have killed it— you and I! We are all its murderers! But how have we done this? How could we undo the ties that bound us together? Who gave us the hands to rip apart the foundations? Who taught us to poison the wells of trust? What were we doing when we shattered the pillars of freedom?

Do you not see what we’ve done? Do you not feel the ground slipping beneath your feet? Are we not drifting in endless uncertainty, unmoored, as though on a sea of chaos? Is there still a center, or have we lost it entirely? Is there still justice, still truth, or do we now wander aimlessly in a desert of lies? Does not the cold wind of isolation strike our faces? Does not the air grow thinner with each passing day? Do we not hear the clanging of the grave-diggers’ tools, burying democracy in shallow, unmarked graves?

Democracy is dead! Democracy remains dead! And we have killed it! How shall we console ourselves, we destroyers of the very thing that made us free? The noblest and most sacred ideal of our time has bled out beneath our hands—who will absolve us of this murder? Who will wash this blood from us? With what rites, what rituals, what acts of contrition could we hope to atone? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Have we now become tyrants ourselves, to feign that we are worthy of the order we destroyed?

This is the greatest crime, the greatest turning point in history—and yet, those born after us will not even realize what we have done!”

Here the madman fell silent, and his eyes scanned his audience. They too were silent, staring at him in astonishment. At last, he hurled his lantern to the ground, shattering it, extinguishing its flame.

“I have come too early,” he said. “The world is not ready to hear what it has done. This cataclysm is still unfolding; it has not yet reached the ears of those who slumber. Thunder and lightning need time; so too does the truth. The light of a dying star may take years to be seen, and so too the death of democracy. The deed is done—but its shadow still travels across the land. They do not yet know they are living in its absence.”

In The Social Contract, Rousseau states unequivocally, that the social pact, "Gives absolute power over to all of his members."

Rousseau also distinguishes, that a private versus a public person are different, and that, "Life and liberty are naturally independent of it."

uh, buh-bye John Locke 🗑️

----

There's incremental housekeeping needed, because Rousseau insists that Sovereignty which is imparted by the General Will being the guiding force of the polity, seems to distinguish just societies, driven by the interests of individuals acting as the whole, in ways which decide - They refuse, to answer further questions. These are not rules made by drug dealers, thugs, criminals, vagabonds, and even worse - ungrateful, self-entitled people! - instead, these are the guiding sentiments, principles, and the subtle respects for proceduralism, which serves the only common interest. Any legitimate pact would HAVE TO agree to these things!

So this brings back curious modern questions, about the nature of pacts and contracts in the first place, as well as the idealized qualities anyone should (and does) believe exist, before agreeing to it.

The nature analogy - if you were to debate with a large tidal wave, about whether or not it will brush you out to sea, or further inland, you'd be an idiot.

But that isn't a crazy thought, or bad-as-an-idea even. I can always make judgements about much smaller masses of water? Is there some number I can see in a tidal wave? No.

What about, a decision to simply float in favorable direction, it appears to be headed? Again, much stronger reasoning prevails, that once one decides whether this is a choice or not - you go with the wave.

And an even further debate or dialogue, is whether or not you set yourself, to dam the tidal forces in the first place? These are the clashing of values in society - where it appears that, senses of inclusion, individuals being valued, this translating into rights, the bonds of security, of nationhood, being a guiding if not constraining force, which outwardly wears imperfection? Yes! All of this, is just, yes!

And so, what can you dam? Can you block the sea from itself? Can you block the sea from deciding to reach further inward? Not in an entirety, not even close - in the same sense Hobbes forces us to reconcile our notions, that people in nature, perhaps are too violent, and simultaneously revert to being too god damned stupid, to do absolutely anything differently.

And so this justifies, two important facets, without itemizing something else here:

• Natural selves, HAVE to be different from Social and Public selves - the natural self does all kinds of different things, when it's alone, when it's by definition not social, and when it's not in conflict, and not pursuing anything for its self interest or familial order - this latter point, family in nature, is perhaps where Rousseau draws the most fundamental and basic line, for what a natural person may achieve, as a positive description. Natural selves can have all kinds of stupid debates with powerful forces, all kinds of stupid adventures, and NO ONE ELSE IS INVOLVED.
• Secondly, Public Selves, are necessarily giving some or much of their time over to the general will, you have to arrive at this. Because, without getting ANYONE ELSE, to see the SAME dumb fucking thing you see, nothing gets done, nothing gets better. And so behaving as a natural person, is not the same type of thing, as the types of things, public and social selves, would agree to.
• And for Rousseau, maybe you disagree that we build POSITIVELY but how so - Teachers Unions led the De-Segregation of the United States. Public land grants, "got through" with the shitty Manifest Destiny idea. So there are limits to optimistic thinking, but it's not a "nothing". Can you imagine, sharing every personal battle you'd wish to have, or every massive goal and dream which has nothing to do with other people? It's a total mess.

For Rousseau, the General Will is like a roborant for society. A society of perhaps emptiness, perhaps even removing the aggrandizement of post-modern philosophy from it's proper historical context, Rousseau seems to beg us to consider this.

Primarily writing into the general will, there's a lavishness which results from a mature society. We know Rousseau may have even intended it this way - historical examples paint the pictures of political machinations, in giant empires both successful, and floundering. And it opens the theoretical space. We have to consider the roles of majorities and minorities, we have to consider the context of rights and legitimacy. we have to reconsider once again, human nature.

But this misses the point of Rousseau's foundation entirely - society is good, because humans are naturally social. And this is perhaps equally true, in the context of man in a state of nature, with our families, seeking industry, seeking sustenance, and defining social roles. Even without moral and political conceptions of Justice, the parts are there (a point he elucidates, or implies in Emile).

And so, my conclusion - My argument is that Rousseau produces a "missing middle." The lability of a society maybe perhaps cannot speak to the General Will, in a substantive way - the years leading up to political maturity, perhaps are totally inconsequential.

And when you see this, grandiosely like I do, the subtle healing effects of the General Will, are themselves, truly general for much of the early formations of society.

There is no singular person to robustly say, "The world has to follow, procedurally, or else this is illegitimate-ed." Why can this be the case, can the system be wrong? There is no singular person to hold the opinion, "I can't take it anymore!!!!" And in a very opposing view of Gramsci, perhaps this is nearly always true. And there's never a singular person, too deeply, and earnestly, and so passionately, challenge society on the grounds that it has abandoned our nature, it has abandoned with her natural law, it has abandoned with her our animistic society, it has abandoned with her, the tangible social mechanisms by which, our understanding of selves, the wellspring of the self in the first place, is capable of supporting - consensus.

A simple, consensus. So we appear to see two version, from an interpretation, of Jean Jacques Rousseau. The aforementioned, may depend on consolidation, the theory demands truth without prescribing justice, except for the aggrieved - he perhaps borrows a trampoline from Hobbes, more than likely.

The second, is BDSM. He needs the harshest critics, the harshest aspects of human reality, to settle into spaces which do-not and never-can-be-without, a definition. They are simply, subject to change, impermeant, but not without a near body-politic capable of illness, and capable of realist interjections into the squally, broken seas which create the political, which create Justice, which are responsible for the completion of the story, which underlies the ego-less self.

We return, to an empty society. Mystical, or transcendent, evoking Buddhism - not without description, but only if its paraconsistent.....

Thank you for reading.

https://thelibertarianideal.com/2025/01/19/capital-as-autonomous-will/

I recently came across an idea that I think is noteworthy: some people think of the word "freedom" as "freedom from" (freedom from tyranny, freedom from mass shootings, freedom from oppression) while others thing of "freedom" as "freedom to" (freedom to do what I want within the confines of the law, freedom to eat what I want, freedom to pick a job I want). How could this relate to someone's political views?

This is just a general, non-academic conversation starter for folks interested in the intersection of moral and political philosophy.

Some Really Good Questions: For Scanlon, things like ordinary moral judgements are incredibly important. We may lose sight of this, as a reflection of society or academia. In an interview, Scanlon referenced questions Plato and Socrates would have asked or answered: Why should I care, about anything? In other contexts, for Scanlon a question about, "Should there be a bookstore in my town," is really important. So is question perhaps, about "Do I have a duty in a democracy, to vote for Senators who speak kindly, or speak honestly?" What do those terms mean, and then what is the reciprocal? what do we owe back into this?

Some Really Good Answers: For Scanlon, and others who take Utilitarian routes, even without deeper moral grounding, these questions are both moral and political. For example, if we talk about having a bookstore in our town, isn't it difficult or contradictory, to then not shop at that store? Or follow it on social media, to repost things, to leave a Google review? If you're Scanlon, these questions might also be about things like social services. If we have an ordinary belief, that Welfare is a good thing, or I can answer a question about, "Belief that sick people should have healthcare," then do we owe something in this view, from a utilitarian standpoint? Does one belief, or the system it works in, go into the questions of policy or justice?

Why Complicated, Grounding Answers, Sort of Suck: If I steel-man the argument, attempt to make it stronger. Why does Hobbes get away with describing how the stars rotate the sun, and how energy moves through the ecosystem, to give rise to mans competitive nature? It's a very different approach. Or Locke has to have a person who believes, that God ordained an order which can just be found in nature. And for Rousseau, we must look at ourselves, we have to see what social decisions become, what those are ultimately like, and what the conversation about Democracy and Representation, looks at, and even looks like - is it on a swivel, versus Hobbes's head on a swivel?

A Lot of Flavour: As I stated indirectly, Scanlon's version of contractualism, seems to escape a lot of the strange moral questions political philosophers ask - it at least offers a consistent and coherent room for moral and ethical theorists. If I'm asking about *one thing* like socialized healthcare, or about a democracy which doesn't trample of people's rights in a foreign nation, or which supports bookstores, and special education, and community and sustainability, and the particulars of how this happens, we don't need a deeper ontological, metaphysical, or epistemic grounding.

From my baseline interpretation, the coherence of seeing a moral-utility in anything, is itself the same thing. And it may just be the case, you don't get moral utility, without these types of observations. And so someone standing up and authentically, honestly saying something like, "My community needs more affordable, plant based options," IS the conversation, that in and of itself, IS the utility, because where else can you go for this type of conversation?

I think this crowds out ethical conversations, some older folks, animal rights folks, may want to have - it's also perfectly coherent, because shouldn't we, look at the externalities? Isn't a situation like, "Well, if day-traders or somehow, like real-estate investors are increasing the risk of a regional war breaking out, they are destabilizing, they elect hawking republicans which cut taxes, and build tension - shouldn't I do or say something about this?"

And he's spot on - Animals and Human-Animals, maybe don't have an opinion about this. Also, if there's an ethical object like a "D-Teon" or a "U-Til" which represent, foundational, realist ethical "things" in the universe, those may not be linear enough to capture the essence of justice in all times, places and ways - even if they are actually, objectively more accurate.

Scanlon's Contracts I'd invite anyone who's formally studied Scanlon, to fill the subreddit in on how Contracts operate within this Utilitarian system? What is the reason these are preferable?

is there a reason that these sort of, utility-generating observations are made grounded, fundamental, or gain justification in some sense, when we think in terms of agreements that societies can come to?

What goes way over the head, of these types of arguments? Where's superman? Are we, still waiting.....perhaps? What is the duty of a citizen, to fill these in, in terms of the dialectic, or conversation which occurs? Who pays for this.

Israel Hayom, Jan. 12, 2025, "Gaza fishermen's cruel dolphin capture draws international condemnation"

A starving population catches a dolphin and eats it to survive. The apartheid society's overwhelming reaction is treat it as an issue of animal rights. The process is one of dehumanization. Animals are vested with rights, but the human population's members are what the philosopher Giorgio Agamben called "bare life," living in a stateless and lawless zone in which they have no rights.

Theorist Timothy Snyder:

"[T]he specific dehumanizing language, of calling people beasts, and saying my opponents can't be in power because they're the ones who are on the side of the beasts, that has a very specific history."

Timothy Snyder, Mar. 19, 2024 interview on MSNBC (YouTube Video).

In this case, the same result is produced through slightly different rhetoric. One could directly call others animals. Alternatively, one could compare others with animals, and to say that the animals are legally protected and the other human beings aren't. In either case, the rhetoric functions to assign the other a social status either equivalent to animals, or lower than animals.

Does anyone have a link to an encyclopedia of politica philosophy??? free to download??

Person 1: well if u are speaking on public & civil spheres like provision of public education, healthcare, infrastructure and social securities then that's not Socialism at all

Person 2: these are socialist ideas. Not socialism per say, full on would be, I guess communism. Especially if everything is controlled and owned by the state... Socialist ideas is a philosophy of social welfare

How do sit with these two sides..?

Timothy W. Ryback:  “Ninety-two years ago this month, on Monday morning, January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed the 15th chancellor of the Weimar Republic. In one of the most astonishing political transformations in the history of democracy, Hitler set about destroying a constitutional republic through constitutional means. What follows is a step-by-step account of how Hitler systematically disabled and then dismantled his country’s democratic structures and processes in less than two months’ time—specifically, one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours, and 40 minutes. The minutes, as we will see, mattered. https://theatln.tc/0kbestj8

“Hans Frank served as Hitler’s private attorney and chief legal strategist in the early years of the Nazi movement. While later awaiting execution at Nuremberg for his complicity in Nazi atrocities, Frank commented on his client’s uncanny capacity for sensing ‘the potential weakness inherent in every formal form of law’ and then ruthlessly exploiting that weakness. Following his failed Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923, Hitler had renounced trying to overthrow the Weimar Republic by violent means but not his commitment to destroying the country’s democratic system, a determination he reiterated in a Legalitätseid—’legality oath’—before the Constitutional Court in September 1930. Invoking Article 1 of the Weimar constitution, which stated that the government was an expression of the will of the people, Hitler informed the court that once he had achieved power through legal means, he intended to mold the government as he saw fit. It was an astonishingly brazen statement.

“‘So, through constitutional means?’ the presiding judge asked.

“‘Jawohl!’ Hitler replied.

“By January 1933, the fallibilities of the Weimar Republic—whose 181-article constitution framed the structures and processes for its 18 federated states—were as obvious as they were abundant. Having spent a decade in opposition politics, Hitler knew firsthand how easily an ambitious political agenda could be scuttled. He had been co-opting or crushing right-wing competitors and paralyzing legislative processes for years, and for the previous eight months, he had played obstructionist politics, helping to bring down three chancellors and twice forcing the president to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections …”

“We have come to perceive Hitler’s appointment as chancellor as part of an inexorable rise to power, an impression resting on generations of postwar scholarship, much of which has necessarily marginalized or disregarded alternatives to the standard narrative of the Nazi seizure of power (Machtergreifung) with its political and social persecutions, its assertion of totalitarian rule (Gleichschaltung) and subsequent aggressions that led to the Second World War and the nightmare of the Holocaust. In researching and writing this piece, I intentionally ignored these ultimate outcomes and instead traced events as they unfolded in real time with their attendant uncertainties and misguided assessments … Both Hitler’s ascendancy to chancellor and his smashing of the constitutional guardrails once he got there, I have come to realize, are stories of political contingency rather than historical inevitability.”

Read more: https://theatln.tc/0kbestj8

Libertarians claim their philosophy is all about laissez-faire, lack of "state interference" (as opposed to those who want to "interfere" or "regulate"). I've long felt this was self-serving capitalist propaganda, i.e. capitalists pursuing their interests is practically synonymous with "freedom", but workers and others pursuing their interest contrary to capitalist interests are "interfering" and messing with the natural order of things. Even liberals and progressives seem to buy into the frame when they critique libertarians for being too fixated on individual liberty at the expense of other equally important values like justice, equality, democracy etc. This allows the libertarians to claim they're the only true champions of freedom ("You mean you're a big government statist who wants to impose your will on other people and be dependent on government? Sorry I'm not for that because I value freedom and self-reliance").

I think G.A. Cohen effectively challenges this view in his book Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality (1995).

"Nozick presents as a defender of unqualified private property and as an unwavering opponent of all restrictions on individual freedom. I claim that he cannot coherently be both...The banal truth is that, if the state prevents me from doing something that what I want to do, then it places a restriction on my freedom. Suppose then, that I want to perform an action which involves a legally prohibited use of your property, perhaps just to annoy you, or perhaps for the more substantial reason that I have nowhere to live and no land of my own, but I have got hold of a tent, legitimately or otherwise. If I now try to do this thing that I want to do, the chances are that the state will interfere on your behalf. If it does, I shall suffer a constraint on my freedom.

...Libertarians are against what they describe as an "interventionist" in which the state engages in "interference...In my view, the use of words like "interventionist" to designate the stated policy is an ideological distortion detrimental to clear thinking and friendly to the libertarian point of view...The standard use of "intervention" esteems the private property component in the liberal or social democratic settlement too highly, by associating that too closely with freedom.

My zeal on behalf of anti-ideological clear-mindedness about "intervention" and "interference" prompts me to comment on a well-known sequence of political debate, which runs as follows. The Right extols the freedom enjoyed by all in a capitalist society. The Left complains that the freedom in question is meagre for poor people. The Right rejoins that the Left confuses freedom with resources. "You are free to do what no one will interfere with your doing, says the Right. If you cannot afford to do it, that does not mean that someone will interfere with your doing it, but just that you lack the means or ability to do it. The problem the poor face is lack of ability, not lack of freedom. The Left may then say that ability should count for as much as freedom does. The Right can then reply, to a significant effect: so you may think, but our priority is freedom."

What do you think of Cohen's argument? Is the assumption that private property enhances negative liberty problematic? Or do libertarians correct on the point that they "value freedom more" (however desirable that freedom may be) and that non-libertarians value other things "at the expense of freedom"?

In today's interconnected world, the dichotomy between globalism and nationalism is a prevalent topic of discussion. As cultures and nations navigate the complexities of coexistence, understanding how these two ideologies can harmonize is crucial for a collective future. The core of this exploration lies in recognizing our interconnectedness while valuing our unique identities.

The Interconnectedness of Humanity

At the foundation of any discussion surrounding globalism is the acknowledgment of our shared identity as human beings. The reality is that the world operates beyond the limitations of borders; elements such as trade, communication, and shared ecological systems bind us together. This interconnectedness serves as a gentle reminder that independence, when viewed in isolation, neglects our shared experiences and duties toward one another. While individual cultures and traditions are essential for personal identity and community strength, they exist as part of a larger tapestry of humanity. This perspective fosters a deep appreciation for diversity, enabling us to see cultural differences as opportunities for learning and exchange rather than barriers.

The Positive Aspects of Nationalism

While globalism promotes a unified approach to addressing global issues, nationalism holds significant value in nurturing a sense of belonging and community. It serves as a reminder to respect the local traditions and cultural contexts that contribute to a society's richness. However, this appreciation must be tempered with humility—to acknowledge that one's national pride should not lead to the exclusion or denigration of others. Healthy nationalism can cultivate local stewardship and protect the unique elements that define a culture, while dangerous nationalism often veers into isolationism and arrogance.

This video explores the delicate balance between being a citizen of your nation and a global citizen. It examines how we can embrace our national identities while fostering cooperation across borders. Key ideas include the shared essence of humanity, the importance of local traditions, and the need for justice and sustainability. Unique insights about how to navigate conflicts between these two perspectives will shed light on creating harmony for all.

Let me know your thoughts!

https://open.substack.com/pub/kaosovercontrol/p/the-new-way-to-govern-recognized?r=36tq0f&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=post-publish

I’m not sure if this is the correct forum for this question, so please let me know if so.

I’m a couple years into my BA in polisci and my modern political thought professors aren’t the best. I feel like I have a surface level understanding of all the major philosophies, and I’d like to get a better grasp on things. Does anyone have recommendations for good philosophy podcasts/websites/youtube channels that might help? Bentham, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche - all the big guys.

Any recommendations are welcome and appreciated!