hi guys i'm in the middle of writing an essay on Hobbes - i found this quote in my notes but i cant remember or trace back how i found it unfortunately :( here is what i have from it

It is worth noting that Hobbes saw us as having

other desires “from nature”, for example, the desires for food, for air,

and for sexual relations with members of the opposite sex. Like the

desire to avoid violent death, these desires will move us in many cases.

But must they determine our actions? Just as gravity causes a stone to

move downward, in the absence of countervailing forces, so the aversion to death will cause men to resist death in the absence of countervailing forces. But surely that does not suffice to guarantee that

men will always seek to avoid death, any more than the operations

of gravity preclude a stone’s moving upward if, say, it is carried up a

flight of stairs in one’s pocket. Indeed, we are as subject to the force

of gravity as is the stone, but this does not prevent us from rationally

and willfully acting against it, by climbing stairs, jumping rope, flying in planes, or blasting off into weightlessness in rocket ships. Men

typically do create countervailing forces to thwart the effectiveness of

their natural impulses. Despite its naturalness, the impulse toward

sexual relations may be successfully resisted in the service of a commitment to monogamy or celibacy or prudence or care for reputation, by any number of means ranging from distancing oneself from

temptation to inviting social censure to voluntary castration

ive tried chatgpt but i still cant find it - this is all i have from it - if anyone comes across it please let me know and thank u so much !!!

I am a newbie to political philosophy 😅 but imo, it's fault of both...BUT...

If someone like Hitler is like the failure of democracy, then it isnt the fault of people(I would say 90% fault of leader and 10% its people) because for someone like hitler tyrant rise, it requires a weak structure of democracy, economic distress etc...

But if someone like a corrupt leader fails democracy, then it's fault of both(i would say 60% leader and 40% its people) because the politician will do at least some good for the people during his/her tenure and the best part? Its people will always have another opportunity to redeem themselves!

I heard someone say that Democracy is not the best form of government because it gave rise to tyrants like Hitler(?)

Now, How true is that?

Someone like Hitler rose to power due to the weak structure of Weimar republic, harsh treaty of Versailles and Great Depression, right?

Hi, I rediscovered this quote yesterday, and thought it was interesting. Without more context, I'm curious your opinion, if JSM is necessarily interpreting the right to speech as moral or political?

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Maybe one backdrop for each point I can think of.

• John Stuart Mill is really only making moral claims, because he's not referencing an original position or state of nature. You don't need to have some claim of political rights, simply discussing how humans necessarily think of free speech, and seeing that right to free speech must be sufficient for the moral position but not necessarily sufficient for political speech.
• This is necessarily political, the properties or characteristics of free speech have to carry over into the political realm, because aspects of truth, or epistemology, are always about whatever political speech is also about.
• Well, it's both or it's neither. Duh. JSM isn't making a "tiny" argument he's describing realism, or alternatively, he only needs to make the "tiny argument" and you're supposed simply just nod and say yes - the argument itself isn't a priori about either "the political" because that doesn't exist, nor is it only about "morality" because John Stuart Mill couldn't draw that distinction - thus, it's just the argument - how can you not see this? It's not even ever a "theory of rights" it's so small and yet so important, it's just about speech.

Not to dominate the conversation, but that's a few ways that I've spent my time, "thinking about thinking"!

Before I begin to explain my reasoning for my claim, first I need to disclose what I understand is the concept of right.

A right is a type of moral maxim. This moral maxim must be universally applying and in harmony with principles of moral autonomy and freedom. What I mean by universally applying is that the claim must be general and not contradictory. For example the moral maxim “Everyone should make false promises to attain their goals” could not be ascended as a universally applying maxim since there is a logical contradiction. The contradiction being in the concept of promises, there is an expectation of truth. So if everyone made false promises, then no promises could be made since there would be no expectation of truth. The concept does not make sense. Whereas the moral maxim “everyone should not kill an innocent person” could be a universally applying maxim since there are no logical contradictions and the principle that every human is an end of itself is respected. 

Now on the principles of moral autonomy and freedom which I mentioned earlier, if we suppose that all humans (rational beings) are ends in themselves then every moral maxim must be constructed around this principle so as not to break it. Part of being an end of itself, is being an autonomous being and retaining the capabilities of choosing their own actions voluntarily. So every moral maxim in question must respect this principle since it is a necessary condition of any universal moral maxim. 

I differentiate moral duties into two (borrowing from Kant), those being duties of justice and duties of virtue. A duty of justice is a negative moral maxim or a positive to protect autonomy. The general negative form being “ought not to…”. For example a duty of justice moral maxim could be “everyone ought not to steal from another”. Whereas a duty of virtue is a positive moral maxim, in the form of “ought to …” A duty of virtue moral maxim could be “everyone ought to help a neighbor in need”.

If we suppose that the purpose of government is to promote and protect the general welfare of society, the first step of doing this is through a social contract. Certain rights are protected, others are taken away, and some are enforced.

A right is a duty of justice moral maxim, that bears a title of compulsion if not followed. For example if we analyze the 1st amendment, which protects freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, it can be seen this is an universally applying moral maxim, that respects the principle of autonomy, and warrants punishment if not followed. If we put the 1st amendment in the format of a ought statement, “everyone ought not to intrude upon a person's freedom to speech, religion or assembly”. To test if this maxim is universal we should see if there are any logical contradictions or if it can be expected that every individual in society should follow this rule. Since this maxim has no logical contradictions and respects the principle of autonomy then it can be ascended to the rank of right. 

Now what if a duty of virtue attempts to be raised to the rank of a right according to the terms I defined? Let's take the moral maxim “I should give good to those in need”. If this became a right, then it would be a universally applying maxim that bears a title of compulsion. Which means any individual who does not give food to those in need will be punished. Surely this invades our freedom to choose and intrudes upon our moral autonomy, which makes this positive right not universally applicable. A right is strict and unambiguous, and has to be followed. There are not many ways to protect citizens from cruel and unusual punishment and there are no cases where it should not be done, but there are many ways to help those in need. Forcing an individual to do a virtue against their own will invades their moral autonomy and shouldnt be a right. 

Of course food and homelessness are issues and it is the object of the government to alleviate those issues. But according to the definitions given, it would be immoral to instill positive maxims or duties of virtue as rights. Duties of virtue should be done voluntarily by individuals. As a country, voting policies that alleviate issues of society would be a macroscopic expression of the duties of virtue.  

I thought this was too good to keep to myself - something I thought about on my walk.

What would the Social Contract be like if it was ordained by God? And in the theoretical sense. Imagine we have to derive the Social Contract in light of all possible knowledge (versus what we might say about universal values a la Dworkin). Some questions I thought of, if you're curious to "hone in" on what I'm thinking about....

• Why does Hobbes get away with studying such a very narrow subset of human experience? And why does Locke escape with arguing from precepts and limitations of government, with what seems like very little backing? Is this ok? Is it teleological and acceptable?
• What are the responsibilities, or ownership, the intellectual norms required of a thinker, a theorist, a person who wishes to present a new idea? When do humans, or "Humans from God" in the poetic sense, claim to have revealed truth, capable of the divide known as "Political Justice" apart from ordinary life?
• Without a theory in place, intuitionally, what are the goals of any theory? Shouldn't a good theory, if God would ordain it as such, deny the right to own slaves, and deny the relationships of people as slaves? Shouldn't God be curious about concepts of stewarding the Earth? What about warfare with one's neighbor? Should God have a person who had thought about Just War, do this work? What about priorities? Is it important if someone is Gay, or White, or Black, or from another Country? Why do States and the Polity matter in the first place? Does God demand we assume this, or we reach it?

I think this would be an amazing, AMAZING $12 PDF and podcast circuit, but moreso, I think the argument is just too fucking delicious not to share. It's a low-budget backdrop and it asks serious, serious questions which may apply to accepted and popular theories of our day, and the past.

"Political Thought From Eden" is what I would call this....

As a small teaser of what this can do:

What type of right is property? Certainly, God would never intend man to ask his fellow man, to hold something in perpetuity? This is absurd. And certainly it becomes important if force is used to take this thing from him - but what if he had stolen it, in the first place? And so possession - appears relevant for one case, and not the other - and in perpetuity, this event of possession does not change, and it remains true in both cases - and so as a political right, the concept of a "right" in the first place must have a specific home which defines and legislates these things - and so what responsibility does this have to morality? Should morality be part of the scope of the social contract?

Indeed, as made political, this type of question is common but it's also "not one you see or reach" every day - it extends itself necessarily - does God mind the timbre and pitch of what property must be? And so how might the law change this - and thus the rights a person claims to have, and what can be given over to the polity, in the first place?

 Edit: How do I have 14 shares and a score of zero karma? That's wild.

The survival of the human race, and the survival of most life left on Earth, depends on our ability to create a sustainable society for several billion people and create a movement that creates that society. This essay aims to promote Uberism, a social, economic, and political framework that aims to maximize the freedom of a human society. Any comments, criticisms, or questions are welcome.

Our brain, speaking broadly, is the primary driver of our behavior; so if we want to create an optimal society for humans, we must start by understanding it as fully as possible. It must be made clear that we do not fully understand the brain. We have an incomplete understanding of how our brains, consciousness, genetics, and instincts influence each other. Nonetheless, we must endeavor to design a society based on what we do know. It is crucial to make the connection between large scale macroeconomic realities, sociological factors, individual psychology, and neural anatomy, as these are the complex systems that directly affect the success of any human society.

The most recognized high-level model for human behavior is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which divides human motivation into five broad tiers, (1) physical, (2) safety, (3) social, (4) self-esteem, and (5) self-actualization. This progression of needs seems to mirror the evolutionary development of the brain itself, beginning with the brainstem, our lizard brain, which controls our unconscious behavior like breathing. As we proceed upwards and forward in the brain, we begin to see increasingly complex neural structures, structures that control the psychological needs identified by Maslow’s hierarchy.

The fifth tier of motivation, self-actualization, occurs when individuals have the bottom four tiers of their needs met, and are thereby driven by their desire to create personal meaning. This state of mind has been identified by other great thinkers in our history as a human being's highest calling, a conclusion reached across generations and cultures. Victor Frankl built an entire therapy system called logotherapy around the pursuit of meaning. Kierkegaard, Camus, and Sarte independently arrived at the foundational importance of meaning in our psychology and mental health, discussing and describing the same intrinsic personal pursuit of meaning.

About a decade ago, a specific section of the brain called the Default Mode Network (DMN) began to attract the interest of our scientific community. The DMN is sometimes called the task negative network, as it is the area that activates when an individual is not actively focusing on something - it is the wandering, daydreaming brain. This particular section of the brain functions as a center for self-reflection, reflection of other people, and imagining the past and future. While the first two functions are incredibly important, the third function, imagination, is the one that differentiates our species.

The link between the DMN, Maslow's hierarchy, and civilization at large is that the DMN, self-actualization, and social stability are themselves linked. If a person has met their current needs, then the DMN activates and the person's mind begins to wander in search of a purpose. That mind wandering is helpful to society at large, as it allows the person to discover or create new, innovative solutions to existing problems or conflicts, and is a critical component to the creative process. If we can increase the amount of time that the DMN is activated in an individual, we can increase that person's innovativeness and self-awareness; and if we can do that for a society at large, we can maximize the creative capacity of that society. The cornerstone logic that underpins Uberism is the belief that the best citizens are those who are operating as self-actualized individuals.

Maslow's model is extraordinarily relevant to us because it gives us a simple structure of human needs, one that can be understood by the general public without extensive training or education. Since we need to find a way to meet the needs of 8 billion people without completely destroying the planet, it is absolutely critical that we understand what those needs are. Maslow's hierarchy not only outlines those needs, it shows us what to aim for. If we structure our society so that maximizes self-actualized citizens, we can theoretically achieve the following effects:

(1) We minimize the severe suffering of that society, as acute suffering is caused by deficits in the bottom four tiers of needs. We cannot end our suffering, given the re-calibrating nature of our psychology, but we can minimize the severity of our suffering. We can end the acute suffering we experience when we actually go hungry, or homeless, or realize that we've traded most of our time, energy, and life to a society that will not look after us in our twilight years. We still have to deal with existential angst, but that is far, far better than the current situation for most people.

(2) We maximize the creative cultural output of that society. Individuals that are focused on feeding or housing themselves, for example, do not focus their time and will on creative pursuits, as creative pursuits generally cannot pay the bills well enough to sustain a reasonable quality of life. Because they don't focus their attention to those creative pursuits, they practice them less, resulting in weaker neural networks, reduced performance, and less artistic volume.

(3) We maximize the stability of the society if we maximize the number of self-actualized citizens. A large percentage of all crime is conducted in order to meet the needs of the individual or their loved ones. If we minimize the cost of meeting those needs, we can minimize the number of people driven to crime out of desperation. Obviously, this does not account for the truly malicious in society, but it does account for the majority of nonviolent criminals sitting in our prisons today.

(4) We maximize the aggregate freedom of our society if we maximize for self-actualization as opposed to aggregate GDP growth. As things stand now, a fraction of a fraction of humanity that possesses enormous freedom and power, far beyond the leveling point of diminishing returns, while most of us struggle to survive. This inequality in wealth is an inequality in power, quality of life, and freedom, and as a result, it is something we should strive to minimize.

Although we like to think that we are free, most of us are driven by meeting our immediate needs. We are slaves to our needs, which means that we are not free to pursue our dreams, goals, visions, and imagination, which lowers the aggregate creative capacity of the society at large. If we create a society that publicly provides the bottom four tiers of needs outlined in Maslow's hierarchy, we can propel as many people as possible to a self-actualized state of mind. We cannot magically conjure the goods and services necessary to enable a self-actualized society, which means that citizens would still need to exchange labor for income.

Just before Maslow died in 1968, he observed that "less than 1%" of humanity was self-actualized. That is a very, very low bar to clear, and the benefits of even doubling the number of self-actualized citizens in our society would be staggering. Imagine if for every genius that realized their creative potential, there was another that did not. Just try and imagine where we would be today if we doubled the amount of Einsteins, Jobs, Curies, or Warhols among us. Try and imagine if there were 10 undiscovered geniuses for every one that was discovered; what would the world look like then?

A final point regarding the philosophical and psychological framework of this theory: the maximization of freedom, of possibility across a society would theoretically counter the gradual increase in entropy. It would seem, therefore, that the fundamental purpose of consciousness is to act as a counter to the gradual heat death of the universe. The laws of thermodynamics argue that the universe will gradually reach a state of absolute inactivity. The basic laws of life, however, run counter to that gradual decline in energy, as the fundamental axiom of life is to make meaning and reproduce. This conceptualization is certainly the furthest branch of this essay, and it is proposed as a thought experiment, not an absolute truth.

The obvious question, assuming the logic is sound, is how: how do we structure society so that we maximize self-actualized citizens?

It's one thing to propose a target, it's another to hit it. While I cannot guarantee that we would maximize aggregate freedom if we structure society according to the following framework, I am confident that we would improve the well-being of almost everyone in that society immensely. In other words, I can’t promise you perfection, but I can promise you pretty damn good.

First and foremost, we must recognize that we cannot simply apply existing philosophies and socioeconomic models to today's hyper-complex world. Our society is far too different from the conditions analyzed by the great thinkers of the past to cut-and-paste whole philosophies. Even if we only go back 20 or 30 years, the data-overloading, just-in-time, instant-gratification world we live in today is unlike anything our ancestors experienced. Our modern world requires a modern, tailored interpretation of civilization. But while we cannot base our civilization entirely on previous work, we cannot simply ignore our history or the wisdom of our ancestors. We have not changed very much, even if our environment, technology, and lifestyles have, and so much of their wisdom and insight is still relevant.

The following structure is divided into two broad sections: income and expenses. The first portion consists of different taxes, which together optimize for a self-actualized society. The latter portion distributes the income gained from taxes according to the stated objective.

Of all the debates and discussions we have had on this planet, what to do with profits is arguably our biggest, most controversial debate. Capitalists argue that the success of the modern world is due to our making capitalists the sole beneficiary of organizational profits. Communists and Socialists, on the other extreme, argue that capitalism is a tyrannical philosophy that exploits the true source of wealth: labor. While there are passionate arguments that can be made for both extremes, it seems only rational that profits be divided between the two. After all, capital and labor are needed to produce the standard of living that we enjoy today, a standard that is far better than anything our ancestors experienced.

While this split seems logical, it also seems incomplete. The third component necessary for organizations to thrive is environmental stability and safety, which can only be provided by government. Given the necessity of stability when making a long term investment, or when producing value over the years, splitting profits and equity equally across these three necessary groups seems the most prudent distribution of profits.

However, this is only a tax that is applied to organizations, whereas most tax income in the present is generated from personal income taxes. These taxes are structured, speaking extremely   broadly, in proportion to the income of the individual. In theory, the wealthier a person is, the more they are taxed. In practice, however, billionaires in this country often pay almost nothing in taxes as a result of legal loopholes and financial manipulation. By shifting the burden of taxation away from income, away from wealth, we can remove the loopholes and schemes so that the wealthiest citizens of our society pay a fair portion of the nation’s income.

But if we are not going to tax individual incomes, what do we tax?

Primarily, we tax land. The specific tax is known as a land value tax, and it is generally considered to be the most efficient, just form of taxation according to some renowned economists. Originally proposed at the end of the 19^(th) century by Henry George, land value taxes are a way to reduce speculation and increase the productive use of land. In this tax, a parking lot and a skyscraper would pay the same tax rate, assuming the same plot of land was used for both. By paying a flat tax according to the land’s estimated value, developers have a strong incentive to develop land, whether that development is industrial, commercial, or residential depends on the specific land and investors. Under this taxation system, the center of cities would generate high taxes per unit of area, agricultural land and rural communities would see much lower tax rates; this would encourage investment, development and population distribution in communities across the nation, not just in city centers.

We now have two concrete forms of taxation: (1) one third of the profit made by organizations, and (2) land value tax. The Uberist framework argues for two more taxes.

The first of these is fairly straightforward: a 99% tax on inheritance, beginning after a fixed, considerable sum; something like $1 million. As a result of this tax, the individuals who accumulate massive fortunes in our society would be able to provide for their immediate descendants, but they would be unable to transfer vast fortunes. This would force those wealthy individuals to actually spend their money while they were alive, increasing the investment and development of the nation, as well as ensuring that the descendants take responsibility for their own lives.

The last tax is arguably the most difficult to conceptualize and calculate. In a word, it is a Pigouvian tax. As we have established, taxation today is very roughly correlated with individual incomes. Hyper-personalizing tax rates for individuals allows governments to influence their behavior much more effectively and efficiently. Personalizing tax rates for individuals is of interest to all of our society, as under the status quo the free market passes the burden of a product or service’s negative externalities to the society itself. Society bears these unseen costs and the creator of these costs currently has no incentive to reduce them under our existing tax structure. By calculating the unseen cost of a behavior using the immense amount of data that is produced today, we can factor the cost of negative externalities into the price consumers pay at the point of sale.

Consider the example of an alcoholic. Generally speaking, alcoholics create problems for those around them for a variety of reasons. They may urinate in public, party all night, or become violent with their spouse. If we can calculate the expected cost of each risk, we can minimize the behavior while also maximizing the government’s income. Continuing with our example, we could calculate the cost of cleaning the wall, the cost of the neighbor’s lost productivity, and the medical and judicial expenses created by abusive alcoholics. By distributing the expected cost of these unpleasant, undesirable risks across the consumers of alcohol, we would be able to raise income while reducing the behavior in question.

While calculating this theoretical cost might seem impossible, it should be possible given the enormous quantity of data that is produced today. Rather than calculating the expected value of a specific positive or negative action, the state would calculate the expected value of the externality across all instances of the specific behavior. Continuing with our previous example, rather than calculate the expected cost of a single alcoholic, the state would calculate all expenses generated by all alcoholics, and then apply a tax during the sale of alcoholic beverages in proportion to this aggregate calculation.

While this logic could also be applied to organizations producing products and services with negative externalities and unseen social costs, doing so feels wrong. The organizations are already dividing their profits three ways, and to factor in an additional tax seems excessive, even if it would influence the behavior of the organization in a beneficial way. This question regarding personalized tax rates for organizations is a point worth discussing at length.

These are the four taxes that would generate revenue for the state: (1) organizational profits tax, (2) land value tax, (3) inheritance tax, & (4) a Pigouvian tax. Now, of course, what to spend all this money on.

An Uberist government aims to maximize the creative capacity of its citizens by maximizing the freedom of its citizens. But that broad directive leaves us with a massive question: how do we use our taxes to maximize our citizen’s freedom?

The short answer is to divide the taxes across ministries tasked with meeting specific needs; so there is a ministry of water, a ministry of waste, a ministry of psychological health, a ministry of energy, etc. These ministries are organized as co-operatives that provide essential goods and services at cost. By subsidizing the cost of basic needs as much as possible, the state ensures that citizens have the most freedom possible, thereby ensuring the optimal use of the society’s neural capabilities. In other words, governmental ministries would maximize the economies of scale to lower the cost of basic needs as much as possible, and then offer those goods and services to the population without the profit incentive. Since these ministries are offering necessary goods and services at the lowest price point possible, citizens have to trade less money, and less labor, and less time and energy in exchange for meeting their needs. Because the cost of meeting their needs is as low as possible, they can afford to spend their time and energy pursuing whatever they want to do, thereby maximizing the freedom of the society.

Many of these industries, the utilities of energy and water for example, consist of monopolistic market structures, where consumers have one or two options of services. Given this market structure, it is not unreasonable to suggest that nationalizing the industries providing basic human needs would result in more efficient, less costly economies.

To further expand on the concept of these ministries as co-ops, they would function almost like a medieval guild. There would be a head executive in charge of the ministry, who was voted into power by the members of that ministry. Since the individuals who were voting for the minister in question are professionals of that field, they would be able to analyze the candidates from a position of knowledge and experience, raising the quality of the leaders in this society. Additionally, it would make sense to structure elections to this ministry on a periodic basis, annually for example, so that every year one of the ministries would vote on for their leader.  

In practice, this distribution of expenses is most closely related to social democracies of Europe. The Scandinavian, Dutch, and Swiss are nations possess strong welfare systems designed to meet the basic needs of their citizenry, often providing these services for free. These governments ultimately regulate the happiest, most innovative societies in the world. While Uberism closely resembles social democracies, there are key differences, especially with regard to the taxes used to generate the state’s income. Even with these differences however, it is reassuring that the government systems most similar to this proposal do in fact create the happiest, most innovative societies.

Interestingly, this framework is designed to prevent governmental creep, or the gradual increase in the government’s role in society. The American government today has hundreds of executive agencies, far more than there should be. While the DOGE is threatening to cut $2 trillion out of the federal expense budget, it has not proposed a structured, systematic way of streamlining these agencies into a more efficient structure. By tying each ministries to a specific need, the society ensures that there is no gradual accumulation of government inefficiency.

Uberism mixes together the best aspects of capitalism, communism, democracy, and authoritarianism into a single ideology that minimizes the harm a government can cause its citizens and maximizes the benefit it provides them. Raising the floor does not limit the height of the ceiling; if anything, a more stable foundation results in the ability to build higher. Individuals still retain the ability to benefit from their own labor, talent, and ingenuity, but the benefits derived by organized production are distributed significantly more equitably.

If we reach back to Maslow’s hierarchy, it would seem that self-actualization operates under a capitalistic model, while the four tiers beneath it operate further to the left. Private enterprises can still exist in those four tiers, so that an individual would still be able to open and operate a restaurant, but they would be forced to compete on quality rather than on price. By dividing the profits of organizations three ways, the society would ensure a regular distribution of wealth, preventing a crisis of consumption and the excessive concentration of wealth.

Hi, just a refresher/reminder that political theories can be either systematic or non-systematic (whatever the flavour of the day, may be).

One example of a systematic theory is Hobbes Leviathan - for Hobbes, the facts which are established about human nature in the state of nature, remain relevant and can be referenced by the State and the Soverign, because the two are connected - they are inseparable and they remain linked.

John Locke, if it's a spectrum, is less systematic - government doesn't appear to argue immediately about the claims that individual have in a state of nature, simply that once the space or platform for a society is established, you have to obey certain precepts. That is, government doesn't really always and forever reference necessary principles from natural law and natural religion, it simply doesn't cross the line.

Modern theories may blur the lines to some extent - for example, IMO Nozickian libertarian-anarchism can be construed as an idealized or Utopian vision, which, as an ideal, seems to work systemically within the constraints of individual demands for choice and liberty, and as a system also must argue against why this is the foundational view - as society enters and metaethics are added, you're now - as an argument, also arguing against idealized or utopian views for non-anarchic theories.

Rawls may be considered the prototype for modern systematic thought in some sense - he doesn't lean heavily on ontology which is annoying for some, and IMO, he also builds the theory from principles which are established in a pure philosophical space - that is, a priori and sythensized a posteori knowledge about a society, can be used fully to support, whatever an idealized society may be like, hence leading to conceptions of justice, and more practical discussions around Instituions and similar.

• Main TLDR takeaways:
• You can argue if systematic thought begins with metaphysics and epistemology.
• You can argue if metaphysics and epistemology, have specifically to do with Justice.
• You can argue why those are or arn't the same bucket (same thing, same thing),
• And, you can place the reliance on principles as heavy and essential, or simply say something like, "Life, liberty and property", or make a claim like a "general will" and that's also fine - if done well, the space is called rich and it's a lower bar for many who are working on critical thinking, logic, and assembling arguments while maintaining sort of the human essence of the thing - it's a Ph.D skill to be able to cut through all the components and stay organized.

Here's an example: It's totally unjust I have to pay my parking ticket - I was in a rush and late to work? And this is because society demands I always be in the right place, at the right time, and they haven't offered sufficient parking - because society is formed on cohesion, my intuition and the material facts supporting it are more important - and, in the state of nature, cohesion and intuition is the primary first-cause of a society - without this, people cannot act on any accord, and thus no accord exists - and so we must either accept that some accord exists and cannot be legislated, or we must accept that legislation has nothing to do with the accord - or, we can accept both, and institutions are always about fairness.

A question I've had is if politics is something really rational, as it more or less depends on applied ethics (with all it implies) aswell as opinions on what's "good" to do, with it's obvious dissent, I mean, it seems that what we see as good or bad is accompanied by some sort of emotion which comess with it based on whichever we value from where we as means or ends "cook up" policies to act upon, within systems which individuals may or may not exploit, which leads to the questions if people really vote or make policies rationally, or if it's more in line with whatever thing they value for whichever reason which generates a reaction from where they act on, is this the reason (as well as how systems work and in which way they work and in which they offshoot) why conflcit exists, ethical scandals and/or discontent towards a status quo from where they want to get out and/or make "ethical" changes which others oppose, motivated by emotion but acted on upon reason and knoweledge (means and ends) which may or may not generate conflict?

Hey everyone,

I'm learning more about the Law. Law as a field has a lot of subdisciplines. Hence, I wonder when it comes to Constitutional Law what is its relationship with Political Theory.

I studied a little of Constitutional Law and the author was quoting Locke and Hobbes both who are central figures in Political Theory.

On this episode of Doomscroll: Daniel Keller joins me to discuss tech monopolies and their cozy relationship to state power, the artificial intelligence race, the chips war, network states and geopolitical competition between the US and China. These are the defining conflicts of the 21st century. There is an easter egg towards the end about a certain math professor who did not like technology very much

BACKGROUND: In 1949, Ludwig von Mises used deductive reasoning to demonstrate that the fundamental laws of economics are necessarily the case (a priori)—they cannot be otherwise. Building on Mises' approach, I have extended his core argument to encompass other forms of human action. This extension results in a logically necessary framework that interacts with—constrains, expands, grounds, and/or breaks—social, economic, moral, and political theories.

PROPOSAL: I’m forming a working group to explore and refine this framework and apply it to selected landmark papers. Here are a few examples of how this framework could produce fresh insights:

1. Social Justice: Mises argued that social justice (or distributive justice) is a meaningless concept. However, extending his argument to other forms of human action reveals that social justice is the outcome of economizing public action, just as prosperity is the outcome of economizing private action.
2. Marx’s Critique of Value: Marx claimed that exchange value in a private economy fails to capture full value. This new framework agrees, identifying five parallel economies where value must be negotiated for all human action to be fully economized.
3. Rawls’ Theory of Justice: Rawls contended that individuals behind the "veil of ignorance" must understand the general rules governing societies, including basic economic principles. This framework extends the argument, showing that the basic laws of economics necessarily govern all human action—not just private action. This approach builds on Rawls' work, leading to a more complete theory of justice: the economization of all human action. "Justice as fairness" becomes a limiting case of this broader framework.
4. Plato’s City/Soul Analogy: According to this framework, a city must navigate five spheres of justice (private, public, political, foreign, and governing), whereas an individual soul deals with only three. This is a novel critique of one of philosophy’s oldest arguments.

CALL TO ACTION: This thread is not intended for debating the example arguments above. It is an announcement for those interested in joining a working group to explore this approach and publish impactful papers.

If you’re interested in being a part of this working group, please message me privately. Thank you!

Theory: In an election, If party A proposes a solution and party B proposes an alternative, whichever party wins has the fewest paths to a positive outcome while the loser has the highest number.

Assumptions: The winner will enact their solution, which will either work or not.

Preposal: The winner must be correct out of all possible solutions, including theirs and the losers, to have a positive outcome. If that is the case then they win, but so does the loser by virtue of being forced into what turns out to be the correct decision.

The loser on the other hand has everything to gain. If the winner is correct they benefit by not having made a mistake. But if the winners solution doesn't work, no matter which solution would be correct, the assumption will be that the loser's solution was correct.

For consideration: The odds (in the most favorable to the winner scenario) seem likely to be 3:1 in favor of the loser.

Point: Transgenderism is a “recent” phenomenon.

Counter Point: That does depend on one’s definition of “recent.” But, really, how far back does one have to go to bite the bullet on that reductio for it to fall?

There have been descriptions of differently gendered individual throughout history and cultures. But, that’s, like, history and “stuff.”

I believe most people, myself included, first became generally aware of the concept of what the T stood for in LGBTQ+, probably beginning sometime in the 1990s - 2000s. Circumstantially, at least I hear that as a reference point, in talking points at least.

I was still masking male back then, and was only generally aware of the “identity.” So I do understand the “feeling” that Transgenderism is a more recent phenomenon. [I speak here only for myself, and from a western cultural frame, I will not address other cultures’ rich and informative modern and historical views on the concept of gender.]

Back in the day, we use to say, “keep the underground, underground” when it came to cool music. I never understood that view.

I would posit that it’s easier to demonize something seen as lacking a history or culture of its own. Plus, I love to share.

I’ve heard references tossed around to Wienmar Republic era Berlin and its institute opened in 1919, Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sex Research) which offered some of the earliest “contemporary” gender affirming medical services. It was eventually destroyed in the rise of German fascism under the Nazi party.

Yeah, a lot packed into that paragraph from which one could make “fodder.” But it did exist. Can’t “fodder” without that fact. But, I bet it’s a pretty safe bet that there wasn’t a lot of research money for gender studies during WWII. Other pressing matters, after all.

How about Marsha P. Johnson (1945-1992). She was present at the Stonewall Riot on June 28, 1969. An important event in LGBTQ+ history. I imagine she did not get a lot of gender affirming care back then. For context, Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Extra fun fact, also in 1973, the publication of Nancy Friday’s “My Secret Garden.”

Anyway, Ms Johnson identified as female and was a prominent member of the Gay Rights Movement. She’s a historical fact that predates our “modern conception” of gender affirming care. See, we did exist before our more modern conception of gender affirming care.

I’ll note, the above brief summary of Ms Johnson’s life comes from an excellent article by Emma Rothberg, Ph.D. | Associate Educator, Digital Learning and Innovation at the National Women’s History Museum where Ms Johnson’s memory is enshrined. It’s an interesting read.

So, how exactly, did the right co-opt feminism anyway? I missed that flanking move entirely. Well played. But, seriously, though, how did the right cleave off a swath of feminism?

“The term TERF was first recorded in 2008. It was originally used to distinguish transgender-inclusive feminists from a group of radical feminists.” Hmm, this looks interesting…. Lots of “fodder” there, I bet….

I'm currently an undergrad studying politics with a concentration in political theory.

I'm hoping to start an undergraduate political theory journal. But, not many people on my campus (and undergrads in general I think) are interested in political theory. They're more interested in international affairs/domestic politics. But, I think this is just a marketing problem. Political theory is so common, from arguments about state definition (Israel, southern US border) to if the US should should have a plurality system.

Have undergrads/recent grads had the same experience at your universities? And, does anyone have any "marketing" or framing tips?

Says it all. Give me some feedback, would be much appreciated.

https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/ejopa/vol11/iss1/12/

The United States is seeing the divide of Democrat, Republican, and Independent and Libertarianism in a new way.

Democratic senators, are representing their constituency by not talking about the idea that government-led agencies and policy can respond directly to problems in labour markets, and problems which leave states interests away from the forces of globalization.

Instead, what is actually going to hurt us in the long run, is the idea, that republicans don't have their own duties and own rights - that is, the republican party should also be representing a position of technocratic and egalitarian policies that often, are endorsed by the executive (governor and governors office) in their own state.

Hey guys,

One thing I've notice is that lawyers/attorneys are very involved in serving positions of public interest. Although it might be that its a "subset" of attorneys that one's who serve those positions.

I have become aware that Law School as a professional schools has many disciplines and subdisciplines within it. It might be that attorneys that specialize in the public interests are the one's who end up in a kind of political position. For instance, a city representative.

So far from my understanding it seems people interested in political philosophers might become Professors...although I do believe some do go to positions of goverment.

Meanwhile, it seems that a subset of attorneys are the one's who fill in most of the goverment positions.

I'd like more clarification on this topic. Could it be that being an attorney is a "practical field." While being a political philosopher is a more "theoretical field." It could be like being a engineer you apply certain "mathematical concepts" while being "mathematician" might involve more of a "academic research/theoretical field."

I was laughing out loud last night when the guy I was debating with called me a communist and also told me to move to a communist country if I didn't like capitalism. When I told him I'm a libertarian socialist, not a communist, he insisted they're the same, as anyone who dislikes capitalism is a communist. He ended up telling me to go to Canada, because according to his idol Joe Rogan, Canada is a communist country.🤣🤣🤣

I have heard of John Gray’s work, inasmuch as I know he provides—what some would consider—a powerful critique of Liberalism.

For someone wanting to understand his arguments, is his book The New Leviathans a good read? Or should I start elsewhere?

https://open.substack.com/pub/valueinthevoid/p/the-surgical-demolition-of-public?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3nspi0

Hey! I'm a undergrad with some experience in philosophy. I've been thinking lately about some of the downsides of democracy, but was wondering, besides the obvious systems that typically dominate different regions of the world in recent history (communism, fascism, democracy, etc), are there other proposed or theoretical systems of government that are different in any key ways? Are people still thinking about this stuff? What might it take for an entirely new political philosophy/system to take over a country like America or the UK?

I think Kamala Harris could have won if she had just done a few things differently.

-Aid to Israel was at an all-time high at the time of the election. Kamala's anti-war stance on Gaza was merely lip service.

-Her overall rhetoric was one of continuing where the Biden Administration left off.

-Biden's presidency was a sham. He is practically a clone of Donald Trump. He did not deserve Kamala's support.

(Delete if not allowed)

Hey everyone,

After sharing The Big Book of Right and Wrong, I wanted to thank you all for the feedback, critiques, and thoughtful questions. It’s been incredibly valuable and really highlighted some areas for refinement. While there wasn’t necessarily a debate, yall's insights helped me confront some key areas where my framework could use more grounding, clarity, or nuance.

Taking all of this in, I’m working on The Small Book of Good and Evil: The Philosopher’s Guide to the Ethical Continuum as a direct response. This project is my way of accepting the challenges and critiques raised about The Big Book, refining the ideas and diving deeper into the foundations.

If anyone has additional cases, thought experiments, or feedback they want considered in The Small Book, now’s the time! And if you’d like to be credited for your contributions, let me know in a message or within your comment—I’d be more than happy to include acknowledgments to everyone who’s engaged thoughtfully along the way.

Thanks again for all the help. Yall's insights have been essential to this journey, and I’m looking forward to where it goes from here