Let's say a historical figure X did all of the following:

• secured military victories for people A

• saved non-negligible number of people belonging to people A from possible death or maltreatment, that would happen if their enemy won

• made sure that people A will stay and survive on certain territory, control that territory, and not be killed, expelled, assimilated or politically marginalized

• committed numerous war crimes against their enemy, people B

Now with all that, what is the most rational, most civilized, and humane attitude that people A should have towards their controversial leader X?

I feel like every attitude is deeply troubling. If they feel any amount of pride about that leader, any amount of thankfulness, any amount of celebration, they will look like monsters who glorify war criminals, etc.

On the other hand, if they completely disavow and reject him, they might indeed look like ungrateful scum and traitors.

Now, when I talk about leaders like X, I'm not talking about types like Hitler. Hitler did not save or defend Germans from anyone - his campaign was all about attacking and conquering others. Germany was not under attack and was not in any kind of danger. He also didn't bring any new territories to Germany nor any gains, glory or anything of that sort. He lost the war, and he had decidedly negative impact on Germany. So he is not a controversial leader. He can be unanimously seen as negative by Germans and others alike.

Here I'm asking about controversial leaders, who in some way legitimately fought for their own people, defended it from attackers, won battles, secured territories, but also committed numerous war crimes in that process.

Is it possible to simultaneously celebrate and condemn them? Like celebrate their military success and legitimate battles they fought and won, but condemn their war crimes? Or it would create some sort of mess in the minds of those people?

What about catharsis? It seems that it's much easier for people to go through catharsis if their leaders were unquestionably negative. It's easy to condemn Hitler and distance oneself from him. But how can one go through the same process if your leader fought a legitimate battle for your people, yet it was all tainted by war crimes? Seems like in such cases its much harder to distance oneself from their legacy, and the opposing side can see such attitude (anything short of total condemnation) as glorifying crimes and disrespect towards the victims.

In such difficult situation how to work towards reconciliation?

This is a copy and paste btw. In my pursuit of an ideal form of government that transcends the limitations of democracy and federalism, a concept has emerged — Libertarian Meritocracy. This system aims to strike a delicate balance, ensuring robust governance while safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals. By prioritizing merit-based leadership, strong checks and balances, and a commitment to individual freedoms, Libertarian Meritocracy presents a compelling vision for a just and efficient government.

At the core of Libertarian Meritocracy lies the concept of merit-based leadership. Unlike traditional democratic systems, where leaders are elected based on popularity, in a meritocracy, leaders are selected based on their expertise, competence, and contributions to society. This ensures that those in positions of power are not only capable but also have a proven track record of serving the public interest.

By prioritizing merit, a Libertarian Meritocracy seeks to eliminate the pitfalls of nepotism, cronyism, and corruption that often plague democratic systems. Leaders are held to a high standard of accountability, knowing that their positions are earned through merit and can be revoked if they fail to uphold the constitution or abuse their authority.

To prevent the concentration of power and protect against abuses, a Libertarian Meritocracy establishes strong checks and balances. Independent oversight bodies are tasked with monitoring the actions of government officials, ensuring transparency and accountability. These oversight bodies have the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct and, if necessary, recommend the removal of officials who violate the constitution or betray the public trust.

Additionally, a Libertarian Meritocracy includes mechanisms for citizen participation in government decision-making. While leaders are selected based on merit, citizens have the right to petition their government, propose legislation, and participate in public debates. This ensures that the government remains responsive to the needs and concerns of the people.

At the heart of Libertarian Meritocracy are the protection of individual freedoms. The government is constitutionally bound to respect and uphold fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and privacy. These rights are considered inviolable and cannot be infringed upon by the government or other individuals.

Unlike some authoritarian systems that prioritize the collective good over individual rights, a Libertarian Meritocracy recognizes that the protection of individual freedoms is essential for a just and equitable society. By safeguarding these rights, the government ensures that citizens are free to pursue their own interests and live according to their own values, without fear of persecution or coercion.

In a Libertarian Meritocracy, the role of the government is limited to protecting individual rights and providing essential services. The government does not interfere in personal or economic matters unless absolutely necessary. This limited role ensures that the government does not overreach its authority or infringe upon the freedoms of its citizens.

Economic freedom is a cornerstone of Libertarian Meritocracy. The economy is based on free-market principles, with minimal government intervention. This allows for innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth, benefiting society as a whole. By fostering a competitive and dynamic economic environment, a Libertarian Meritocracy ensures that resources are allocated efficiently and that wealth is distributed fairly.

A Libertarian Meritocracy recognizes the importance of education and innovation in driving progress and prosperity. The government invests heavily in education, ensuring that all citizens have access to quality education regardless of their background. Additionally, the government supports research and development, fostering a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Environmental conservation is a priority in a Libertarian Meritocracy. The government implements policies to protect natural resources and mitigate climate change. By prioritizing environmental sustainability, a Libertarian Meritocracy ensures that future generations inherit a healthy and vibrant planet.

A Libertarian Meritocracy engages in diplomacy and international cooperation to address global challenges such as poverty, conflict, and disease. By working with other nations, a Libertarian Meritocracy seeks to promote peace and prosperity on a global scale.

Libertarian Meritocracy offers a compelling vision for a government that balances strong governance with the protection of individual rights. By prioritizing merit-based leadership, strong checks and balances, and a commitment to individual freedoms, Libertarian Meritocracy aims to create a just and efficient government that serves the interests of all its citizens. While no system is perfect, Libertarian Meritocracy represents a significant step forward in the evolution of governance, offering a model that combines the best aspects of democracy and federalism while addressing their shortcomings. "A Libertarian Meritocracy: Where governance is earned, rights are sacred, and progress is built on merit and justice."

It seems to me that there are 2 underlying, equally important, contrasting spirits in society. I'm looking for accurate words to describe them. Typically I use conservatism and progressivism. But that seems to be problematic, and so I assume incorrect. I'm looking for help to find the words I'm looking for.

Spirit 1. I Typically call progressivism. The spirit of being concerned with change. Based on making things better through perceived opportunities. Colloquially: things aren't as good as they could be and we can make them better by changing some things.

Spirit 2. I Typically call conservatism. The spirit of being concerned with maintain as is. Based on preventing disaster through maintaining proven solutions. Colloquially: the world is a very dangerous place, but we've tentatively figured out how to not die and we don't want to ruin that.

I believe that this fundamental binary exists at all levels of analysis in society.

But in using Progressive and Conservative, it seems that the conversation gets hung up on... what seems to me to be shallower concepts of progressive/conservative.. like what the conservative party of country A or B think.

So I'm assuming I'm wrong and that there's better words to describe the phenomenon I'm interested in discussing. Hoping for some help.

To be clear, I'm primarily concerned with finding new words to fit the definitions, not as much alter the definitions to fit "Progressive" and "conservative."

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but does anyone have reading recommendations on the topic of what Montesquieu calls the "passions" of the human soul in The Spirit of the Laws? For each regime type, he says, there's a specific principle that guides it (honor for monarchies, virtue for republics, fear for despotism) and these principles contain natural human passions of all sorts. These principles show up in every aspect of the society it guides (education, laws, customs), making it possible for people to live together under one government. What I need for my work is something that explains this movement between natural passions and regulated, contained principles that make social life happen. From what I understand, he's making a point that wild passions are what motivates humans to act but they need to be channeled into formal principles to maintain social order and committment. What I'm trying to show in my research is that this whole discussion is more important to the understanding of his main theory of separation of power than it is often taken. Anyway, any recommendations are appreciated.

PS: I'm sorry if this is confusing to read, English is not my first language!

I read lots of political philosophy, but how do I ask the right questions about the work I am reading?

All my previous enquiries have either been stating the obvious, or read like a book report.

If anyone would like specifics, I am reading Discourses on Livy atm.

Thank you in advance.

So, a common criticism I see about presidential systems is that they tend to be less democratic compared to parliamentary systems, and more prone to democratic backsliding.

How much truth do you think there is to this? Is the system itself flawed, or does it have moreso to do with the society that it used in not having a strong democratic tradition?

The parliamentary system certainly does seem more appealing to me, though I'm not that keen on the Westminister version of it.

Hello there. Recently I've been curious about the overall opinion on the critiques pointed at Rawls' book "A Theory of Justice". In your opinion, does Rawls commit actual contradictory fallacies that imply the hypothetical situation becomes unstable? Does he give off that big of a non-pragmatic outlook?

I'm guessing this is a very vague question, but I'm curious since I've never seen an actual pro-Rawls critically explaining their views especially when confronted with a libertarian or a communitarianist.

Did either show benefits or weaknesses in one area or another? What effects do you think these competing traditions had on a society?

Hi all! I’m writing a piece on epistemic injustice and was wondering how useful people think it is for analysing the place of race in political theory? Especially in regards to big thinkers like Kant, Hobbes, Douglass and Rawls !

So, I'm looking for a balanced debate about the strengths and weaknesses of democracy.

I think most of us prefer it to dictatorships and theocracies, but it's also true that a lot of people, at least in the U.S. are becoming increasingly disillusioned with a dysfunctional system. I can't say I blame them.

I'm wondering how much of the support democracy is based on our cultural values? Not everyone wants to live like us. I'm sure the societies in the Amazon are happy with their tribal system, for instance.

There's a debate as to whether democracy is the end goal or just a means to an end.

Thoughts?

My first point of remarkability comes from the sharp distinction that Liberals and Nazis make between themselves, however, in the Netherlands, the Dutch with pre-natal testing are now able to abort 95% of the foetuses who have the genetic markers for Down Syndrome.

My question is that, is it objectionable only when the methods to remove a group from society is through overt, dramatic and state-led methods such as genocide and mass murder versus from below through individual choices and covert methods such as abortion?

I'm not making a link between Liberalism and Nazism, however in this case, the means are different, but the outcomes (ends) are the same, the destruction of a group of people. And we mustn't forget that the Nazis were after the disabled too. Which is what those with DS are classified as.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/

My polls on this issue:

(Votes are cast by forums with a supermajority of those in the West):

[DISCUSSION] [POLL] Nazis wanted to exterminate the disabled, In Denmark, prenatal testing has lead to a 95% abortion rate for those with a heightened possibility of Down Syndrome, this has been achieved not through the power of the state, but individual choice. Is This Irony Evident To You? : r/WhatsMyIdeology (reddit.com)

https://www.reddit.com/r/IdeologyPolls/comments/154jz77/nazis\_wanted\_to\_exterminate\_the\_disabled\_in/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button

My second point of remarkability comes from the fact that abortion, much like the paradox of tolerance, represents an issue not just for Liberals, but for those Conservatives who support abortion (population control vs individual choice) and Leftists. And those are ultra-traditional and traditional, who have a multitude of children, anywhere from 6 to 13.

As the population of the ultra-traditional and traditional increase in countries which don't repress such peoples (example of repression People's Republic of China, North Korea, etc.), the populations of those who support abortion for a variety of reasons [individual choice, population control, personhood starts after birth or adult rituals (where infanticide can also be justified, although this is not a pre-requisite, as other societies like India also used to have a well-observed practice of infanticide in regions)], will fall gradually over time (in the World this could be from 1-300 years), while those who have a lot of children, may be small in number but would eventually come to make up the largest proportion of population in the country.

This is visible in a fast pace (in demographic terms) in Israel, where the Haredim used to make up a small proportion of the population of Israel in 1949, about 3.5%, but now roughly make up about 13.5% of the population of Israel, and by 2050 would be about 24%. They had 7.5-8.5 TFR (Total Fertility Ratio, that is the total number of children a woman has through her lifetime), and now have 6.5-7.5 TFR, while Conservative Jews have a TFR of 3, the Liberal and Reformist Jews have about 2.

A Third of Israeli Jews Will Be ultra-Orthodox by 2050, Forecast Finds - Haaretz Com - Haaretz.com (archive.org)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/nearly-1-in-4-israelis-will-be-ultra-orthodox-by-2050-study-says/

My Observations:

Senseito Party, a party considered more to the right of the long-reelected Liberal Democratic Party of Japan has won the seat of Okinawa Prefecture from them, OP has the highest birth rate in the entirety of Japan.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/08/08/national/politics-diplomacy/okinawa-sanseito-popularity/

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14836699#:\~:text=Okinawa%20Prefecture's%20fertility%20rate%2C%20or,population%20decline%20in%20February%202021

https://mercatornet.com/islands-of-fertility-in-east-asia-okinawa-and-amazingly-north-korea/24500/

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3042812/fertility-secrets-okinawa-give-birth-hope-sexless

Correlation is not causation, but it makes you think doesn't it? :D

While the UN Population Study for the year 2300 (made in the year 2002) has many ranges for population in the year 2300, the lowest population projections would be for the lowest birth rates, high education in women, widespread contraception, small family sizes, etc. While not in the study, higher abortion levels, suppression of religion and birth abstinence would likely lead to lower population than the lowest range in this study. It's important to point out that the Haredi work, but women work more. They work quite a bit in the IT industry, so work and education in women, shouldn't be taken as a force which uniformly reduces birth rates, although it does in most cases and groups of women. Haredi men work, but at lower rates than the women, because they have to study the old religious texts, supported by government subsidy and are not conscripted (one could say their job is to preserve living heritage versus museum heritage).

https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un\_2002\_world\_population\_to\_2300.pdf

From Seminary to Startup Nation: Could Haredi women propel Israel's tech boom? | Ctech (calcalistech.com)

A pretty up-to-date study by the Lancet, shows that widespread contraception and female education would lead to their lowest range by 2100 (which is pretty low), even so, following current trends (extrapolated) would lead to about 8.3-8.6 billion by 2100, which is lower than UN projections, even if they are from 2022 (their study shows 10.4 billion).

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext

wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf (un.org) [top of page 9 of the PDF, or (ii) of the document]

The Amish Birth rate is pretty high, but it depends on the external economy which they trade with, but those birth rates don't fall below the replacement rate or even get close to it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8417155/#:\~:text=While%20Amish%20mortality%20rates%20dropped,Amish%20woman%20 (this link specifically highlights the TFR of 6 to 8, but you can read the rest of the study to get a full understanding as I did).

US Pentecostals and non-denominational Christians among others to have 2.4 birth rate:

https://ifstudies.org/blog/americas-growing-religious-secular-fertility-divide

African Century from population growth:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/13/africa-century-economic-growth/

However African birth rates in most sub-saharan countries are also close to replacement when infant and child mortality is considered (I cannot locate this study), even without that study, I have studies which show the persistence and uneven transition to replacement fertility and the conflict with large family sizes and high fertility, pro-natalism and low family planning versus unmet contraception needs in women (the conflict can be in women too, who may want large families but also want contraception) and the other study covers the high mortality in under-5s and at the other end of the age bracket (cross-pressured mortality rates):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011385/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(22)00337-0/fulltext

My polls related to this are:

(Votes are cast by forums with a supermajority of those in the West):

[POLL] A pro-abortion stance is a logical paradox for liberals in the long run. : r/IdeologyPolls (reddit.com)

https://www.reddit.com/r/WhatsMyIdeology/comments/137cfos/poll\_discussion\_a\_proabortion\_stance\_is\_a\_logical/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button

My third point of remarkability while it only has one data point that I'm aware of and is publicly available on a wide number of sources, is that those who have a large number of children, regardless of their ideology, but as shown earlier, are likely to be more conservative than average or some variant of traditional or ultra-traditional, would see the largest number of LGBT+ people born to them, imagine that, those who are "pro-life" would have the most number of the group of people that western progressives are currently championing for at this moment. If we assume that Western Progressives are correct and that being LGBT+ is more about biology than society (maybe to establish these as essential traits to them, which I also find ironical, since they argue against essentialism when it comes to "cisheteronormativity", or that the normal baseline is normal and essential in the West, but that's an observation for another time) then those that have the most children and those who are in support of having the most children, would also have the most LGBT+ children potentially.

The only data point I have is Elon Musk's child who legally separated from him:

Elon Musk: Billionaire's daughter cuts ties with her father (bbc.com)

My Fourth Point of Remarkability (axiomatic) those capitalists and socialists who support abortion, are merely reducing their own future consumers, manufacturers, producers, workers, administrators, etc. leading potentially to their inexorable self-extinction.

Not to beat a dead horse like a cooky, old and cough-ridden conservative, but I find all these amusingly and highly ironic.

:D

So, I had an idea of a theoretical political system where certain government offices are chosen by lot. While certainly rare, and we lack any modern examples (aside from juries) there is at least historical precedent for this, particularly with Athens.

Here's my idea:

There would be two chambers. The members of the lower house are chosen by sortition. Once all seats are filled, the first order of business is for the legislatures to select a certain number (let's say seven, for now) from amongst themselves to form a committee, led by a speaker.

The purpose of the committee is to help provide order in the legislature and has responsibilities such as moderating debate and determining which issues are brought to a vote. The committee can be dissolved by the legislature at any time. Likewise, a legislator can be recalled by their constituents at any time.

I don't actually know if an upper house would be necessary, but if so, it would serve as a check against the lower house to prevent hasty and poorly considered legislation from passing. I imagine that the members of the upper house would be elected or chosen by some means other than sortition.

Thoughts?

I have for a long time been passionate about seeing change, something different from capitalism/libertarianism, something closer to socialism or communism. I believe that society should be fairer and we are living by destructive values (this is not an invitation to argue about the merits of these ideologies)

So, how does one go about helping leftist causes?

Should one join a party or group? These groups can sometimes feel like intellectuals, or sometimes people who's identity is tied to how they categorise their political beliefs. Joining these parties is on the premise that you will learn more of the ideology in order to be able to convince other people. I just don't really understand how this can sway regular folk with little interest in philosophy. Maybe I'm wrong?

How else can one help? What is the path via which a society can move in that direction and how can one individual help?

So I had this frightening thought the other day and I want to lay it out here for discussion:

Imagine a scale that goes from everything being completely fine at the top to the worst situation imaginable at the bottom. Throughout life we determine how good and how bad a thing or a situation is by applying this scale. We calibrate this scale by the best and worst experiences we've had or that we can realistically expect to happen to us (I know this is a bit wishy washy but bear with me). As such this scale adjusts based on the suffering we and those around us experienced and keeps adjusting constantly. It is this scale that we weigh our reactions to insults, inconveniences, etc. on.

Therefore, is it not fair to assume/predict and has it not already happened in the past that society is "best" in the rebuilding years after a war and at most one generation after? I see this in Europe after WW2, the creation of the EU, the rebuilding, generally good policy being made.

On the flipside, has the ongoing peace and perhaps stagnation, especially in the political space given rise to ever increasing corruption and ever worse policy? We see an ever increasing shear between the poor and the rich, governments across the board failing to meet the needs of the people who then turn their heads to populist, usually right wing hard line parties.

The question is this: Does a society inherently need war as a measure by which to reset the bottom end of the social scale that we use to measure our lives by? Do we need war to avoid the increasing escalation of ever smaller issues made big by lack of perspective? Is war perhaps inevitable as the horrors of it leave the minds of those in charge of preventing it?

All this is to say I never ever want war anywhere close to me ever again as long as my family line continues, but this thought came up one night and hasn't left me since. So please, discuss and if possible alleviate this fear!

There’s no such thing as a stupid question, because that’s preying on innocence and a lack of awareness.

But, the “I discovered (x), now debate it in front of me” framework is utterly ridiculous.

There is so much info available in books, on the internet, and through search engines it’s not funny. Go ask AI your questions if you want different versions of the same thing. Come here to get the difficult questions answered, or to be pointed in the right direction. Redditors are stacking firewood, pouring gasoline on top, and flicking matches to spark conversation.

This page should focus on pointed questions and put restrictions on unmitigated debate because philosophy is as moralistic and ethically-bound as any topic. We need facts, evidence, expert knowledge, and “where to go from here-type” resources. This should not be a contemporary political debate-fest. I think asking for people’s political opinions, instead of establishing your own is like paying an accountant to do your taxes for you instead of learning how to do them yourself.

I keep seeing these great topics, but no actual questions. Or, “here is all this research or writing I’ve compiled, (now do the heavy lifting for me).” Or, ”tell me what to think.” That’s not the point and I don’t know how to respond to half the content on this page.

It sounds like university/college students are in the middle of final exams!

“Now, debate!” 🫵

I used to think we were divided because we disagreed with each other. The left and the right have very different ideas about morality and how to best govern. I thought politics and all this fighting was our way of figuring out which side's ideas work the best.

But if one side really did have all the best ideas, why aren't they winning every election? Why do democracies around the world have exactly two sides, that have been stuck in a never-ending tie? Why do the parties in continuously trade sides on key issues every few decades?

When you zoom out, it stops looking like we're fighting over the ideas.

I kept pulling the threads and wrote this essay about what really divides us. "yes, and" me, ask questions, tear it down. Just curious to hear what others think

https://todayscommonsense.substack.com/p/part-1-explaining-our-divisions-with-pizza

​

Some quotes from Giovanni Gentile’s “What is Fascism: Discourses and Polemics”:

“Seeing that, in part, fascism is liberalism: at least the liberalism of men who sincerely believed in freedom, and had however an austere concept of it... liberalism, as I understand it and as the men of the glorious Right of the Risorgimento understood it, the liberalism of freedom in the laws and consequently in the strong State and in the State conceived of as an ethical reality.”

And: “Fascism is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form”

And: “It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged-conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin.”

Now, go Reddit, go! Show me the depths of your intellectual depravity, resentment, and anger! … Or you can discuss politely 😂 whatever you see fit!

Hi bros!
I want to learn everything in political philosophy, just the eras and philosopher's works. I am REALLY interested in politics. Where should I start from.. plus how much time will this take? any YT channels?
(i have made a list of philosophical theories but they are just scattered all over my page, not knowing what came first)

My blog post on Ian Buruma's Spinoza: Freedom's Messiah:

​

https://www.theraggedwood.com/post/a-thinking-stone

'The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.'

Are there any common objections to this on ideological or empirical grounds?

Thank you

To be clear, I am referring to "left-wing" and "right-wing" in an American/Western context.

When it comes to historiographies of most revolutions - e.g., the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc; - people who are aligned with the political left tend to hold said revolutions as positive events and extoll their apparent virtues, while those on the political right tend to hold the revolutions in a negative light and lament social, political, and economic changes and bloodshed resulting from them. This is especially the case within countries where a particular revolution occurred - for example, the French left portray the French Revolution in a very positive light, while those on the French right portray it negatively. But even internationally, those on the left tend to hold the revolutions as positive and those on the right as negative; for example, outside France, those on the left are more likely to praise the French Revolution, while those on the right are more likely to criticize it.

However, in the case of the American Revolution, if anything, the reverse is the case. Within American political contexts, it those on the right almost unanimously hold the revolution in a positive light and tend to praise the social, political, and economic changes which it brought about, and are much more likely to praise the revolutionaries as heroes. Meanwhile, those on the left are much more divided in their positions regarding the revolution and, on the whole, are much more likely to criticize the revolution and the revolutionaries and lament the societal changes which the revolution brought about. Those on the left are far more likely to say the revolution was bad/unnecessary and say they wish it failed and much more likely to portray the revolutionaries as villains.

And this seems to be the case internationally as well - those aligned with the left are much more likely to condemn the American Revolution - or at least be critical of it - while those aligned with the right are more likely to praise it. The one exception to this I can think of are “old-fashioned/posh“ traditional right-wing niche-types in Commonwealth countries (especially if they are monarchists); they are more likely to be critical of the revolution than approving of it, for obvious reasons. Otherwise, internationally, the left seems to regard the revolution more negatively and the right regards it positively.

So, why in the case of the American Revolution are the right more likely to praise it and the left more likely to criticize it when the reverse is the case for most other revolutions?

I’ve posted about this on the political science sub Reddit and I was told I could find better answers on here so I’m giving it a shot, I’m a first year political science student and we’ve been assigned debates and unfortunately, I’ve been assigned to debate against healthcare being a human right and I’m struggling to argue for this topic in a way that’s ethical and it’s impossible to find sources that can back me up and help me out with counter arguments!! Any suggestions or words of encouragement are appreciated because this is driving me insane lol

Free Will, Social Darwinism, and the Empathy Deficit

Perhaps no human idea is more primitive or pervasive than the idea that people are the genuine authors of their thoughts, sources of their actions, and that free will is as real as it seems to be apparent. While this notion, or Philosophical libertarianism, can be reinforced through social conditioning, it's mainly the byproduct of an evolutionarily necessary sense of agency. The will for anything requires an illusion of purpose.

Empirically, the legitamacy of the libertarian claim is in a state of decay. An expanding collection of neurophysiological evidence demonstrates free will as nothing more than an illusion, albeit a powerful one.

The moral implication of belief in free will however, cannot be directly attributed to the degree to which one proclaims its existence, but to how thoroughly the notion influences their evaluation of an outside behavior- a prerequisite for empathy, or lack thereof.

In nature, one can rarely help but prioritize themself, their mate, and their offspring above others, followed by family, friends, and progressively distant social formations. Unfortunately, this spectrum of tribesmanship seems to naturally extend to ethnic, cultural, geographical, and financial backgrounds. The political beliefs held by any individual are heavily predicated upon the diameter of these diminishing circles of concern. With this in mind, empathy can be defined as the subconscious capacity to reconcile another being's circumstance with a nebulous chain of causality.

It is of no coincidence that this philosophical concept of libertarianism shares a name with its political counterpart. Etymologically, libertarian, or liberty, simply means freedom. The freedom to fulfill one's potential. The freedom to prosper at the expense of the less fortunate. The freedom to disregard the well-being of those deemed "unworthy." Opportunity. Capitalism. Despotism.

To act without a reason would require thinking of something truly random, which would require thinking without thinking. Nobody gets what they deserve, they receive what their genes and surroundings supply. The recognition of one's lack of control over the variables which separate their own experiences from those of others allows for the exercise of both cognitive and emotional empathy.

In a deterministic reality, the concepts of punishment and reward are obsolete absent a societal deterrence and incentive. It only requires putting oneself in the shoes of one of the innocent four percent of American death row inmates to witness the barbarism of capitol punishment.

Any era characterized by high levels of despotism has certainly had no shortage of empathetically deficient leaders. It comes as a surprise to many that "survival of the fittest" was a phrase coined not by Charles Darwin, but by Victorian anthropologist Herbert Spencer as an economically royalistic justification for the wealth inequality of the Guilded Age. While this phrase couldn't be any more applicable to natural selection, in regards to the implementation of policy which dictates the well-being of a populace, it is completely optional.

Refer to this picture for the spectrum.

I understand this equilibrium is a function of its specific time and place in history, so let's just say within this techonological era.

I was recently thinking about all the 'unifications' and 'secessions/revolutions' through history and why we celebrate some of them yet condemn others.

The unifications that seem to celebrated are the ones that unify based on shared ethnic/social backgrounds, languages, and cultures (which itself may be a function of ethnic/social history), e.g. Qin dynasty China, Germany 1871, American Civil War, etc. The secessions/revolts we seem to celebrate are the ones where the state split along a polarization that existed within those factors, with mostly colonized/puppeted states, e.g. American Revolution, 1990s Eastern Europe, Haitian Revolution, etc.

My kneejerk thought is that an 'ideal' world (one with minimal war/conflict) would be one where the granularity of sovereign powers was split along these factors - yet this very separation can also be viewed as 'global segregation by ethnicity', which may itself just open an entire new frontier of international conflict. So perhaps some federation-like structure is needed to regulate this conflict? Just thinking on the fly here.

What are your thoughts?

I'm reading a book on Ronald Dworkin's philosophy on justice and Egalitarianism. I see it at its best as an old philosophy, and not much different from social democracy which has already failed, I consider myself a leftist. Still, I didn't find much of a philosophical left critique to his philosophy, so, is there any critical philosophy thought that works as a left-leaning rebuttal for Dworkin's justice philosophy?

The West relies far more on coercive propaganda than anyone else, because their needs for propaganda are higher. Propaganda exists to sell a story. The West's "story" is that they are innocent, benign actors who always follow the rules and respect the law when engaging with other countries.

If Russia was engaging in Mexico, this would be universally denounced by the West, because Russia should not mess around in the West's neighborhood. But if NATO is active in Russia's neighborhood, this is fine, because the West only has good intentions.

If Russia spends any money to influence Western political campaigns, this is always wrong. If the US spends billions on influencing other countries' politics via NGO's, this is fine, because the West is simply trying to promote good democratic values.

Nobody is nearly as ambitious as the West when it comes to propaganda. There is no lie so big that the West cannot sell it: they can simultaneously do the most to undermine the global "rules based order" while claiming to be its greatest champion. They can invade a country based on a lie, kill a million people, and then - when the lie becomes inconvenient - pretend that the invasion was about something else entirely.

Nobody else is even close to being so audacious with their propaganda.

The Nazis had been experts on propaganda, but even they had limits. They concealed their genocidal activities, and pretended that people were being "resettled to the East". When the Nazis liquidated the Warsaw Ghetto, they didn't pretend it was anything but a wholesale slaughter.

It's quite astounding. Humanity has always been plagued with evil people in positions on f power, but we've never been confronted with such a diabolical cabal - who could steal food off your plate while simultaneously telling you that you're better off, and any shortages are due to somebody on the other side of the world

Hello, I am wondering if in Plato's 'The Republic' books and chapters are the same thing as I can not find any indicators for when a chapter starts/ ends. Might it be the pdf I am reading from?