HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: Philosophy Overdose

Rawls vs Nozick

1003 ratings | 55501 views
Ronald Dworkin gives a very brief, introductory overview of John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" and Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" in an interview with Bryan Magee from 1978. Although both wrote very influential works of political philosophy, they came to quite different conclusions. Rawls famously put forward a novel argument for his position which made use of a thought experiment involving a hypothetical contract. Unlike other social contract theories though, Rawls added the further twist that the bargainers must be ignorant about certain facts about themselves which could bias them in their own favor (e.g. their race, gender, class, age, talents, etc.). In this way, ignorance is used as a device to guarantee impartiality in deciding how societies should be structured. After all, one cannot rig things up to benefit oneself if one doesn't know what one's interests are and what one's position in society will be. Rawls argued that people behind this so-called "veil of ignorance" would agree to two principles, the most interesting being the difference principle, which states that economic inequalities are justified only if they benefit the worst off in society. Such a view was rejected by Nozick however, who argued from a starting point of absolute rights of property which cannot be violated without one's consent. Despite such a strong principle, Nozick argued that there can still be a state, a so-called "night-watchman" or minimal state, which protects property and person. In this way, Nozick can be understood as privileging liberty over equality, whereas Rawls privileges that of equality and fairness. (My Summary) For a more detailed explanation of Rawls, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwVqDBB9PwM&
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (158)
Philosophy Overdose (1 year ago)
00:00 Rawls 09:23 Nozick
PurpleHeartBMG (3 months ago)
Thank you. Well done.
Philosophy Overdose (1 year ago)
Charlie Brown (1 year ago)
what date was this?
Thomas D (6 days ago)
01:18 -  _________ 01:36 - 02:00 - _________ 02:32 - 03:35 - First : _________ 04:08 - Secondly : 04:33 - _________ 04:50 -
Thomas D (6 days ago)
05:06 - The Principle of Priority : The First Principle dominates the Second Principle _________ 05:30 - 05:30 - _________ 07:13 - 07:35 -
Ares Blessios (6 days ago)
Writing a paper on Rawls v Nozick for my first ever philosophy class and this video broke down the argument so clearly and brilliantly! Salute to Dworkin
Philosophy Overdose (6 days ago)
If you need Rawls broken down further, I strongly recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhVByiXBxi4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwVqDBB9PwM
Thomas D (6 days ago)
_________ 07:56 - The root question : 2 Possible Approaches to answer WHAT IS JUST ? 08:09 - What arrangement of goods in society is just depends on the answer to a further question _________ 08:19 - Namely : What kinds of lives should women & men lead ? 08:27 - One Theory : _________ 09:01 -
double negation (1 month ago)
One limp dìck vs another.
StopFear (1 month ago)
That first guy, what a weirdo. No fashion sense.
Halti Hirvelä (2 months ago)
Rawls = justice, Nozick = greed
Daniel C (2 months ago)
Halti Hirvelä How would you define justice?
kyle westrip (3 months ago)
I'm personally to the left but I can understand the concept behind Nozick and liberalisation of the economy. I wish he was right.
Michael Dodd (3 months ago)
Forget first principles, start where the rubber meets the road. -Michael A. Dodd
Kenneth Shouler (5 months ago)
I had never seen Ronald Dworkin in action until here. This is done in such a high-minded manner and he provides insights (not to mention telling criticisms) into these two views. Whatever his disagreements, Dworkin does this with such verve.
Clifford Hodge (6 months ago)
I don't see that Rawls' ideas entail a taxation-for-welfare state.  If a certain degree of rationality is assumed for those in the original position, they may realize the difference principle is not violated if they choose to draft a contract which does not create any social welfare programs.  Also, I think Nozick's program would require taxing for more than just government provision of defense against rights violations.  When you consider free market problems like The Tragedy Of The Green or the NIMBY problem, you are getting more into the necessity of programs for the general welfare.  These paradigms show that individuals acting merely for individual benefit will fail to provide needs or highly desirable benefits to themselves which could have been provided by the state if the social contract (legal monolith) had provided for the appropriate state functions.
Anyone with hint of a brain can see through Rawls' garbage. Why else would he devise a tool that would so robustly protect rights that are valued by the group he seems to represent and so weakly the rights that other people value. The group these "liberals" represent are nothing but a bunch of greedy thieves. All their theories rationalize theft while protecting rights they value. Every single one of them. Nozick of course destroys these absurd notions perfectly. A peaceful process is the ONLY just process. And, liberty needs no justification. The progressive notion is that their statism is justified and ONLY their statism is absurd.
M A (3 months ago)
lol yes if you totally ignore the point of the veil of ignorance, it totally protects a specific group, according to you, i guess. neat.
Ian Claudio (6 months ago)
Godam this comment section is on firr
federico amadeo (7 months ago)
To the extent that it is relevant to this discussion, getting knee-deep into hard sociology strikes me as pretty pointless. You asked how is class not superfluous concerning matters of justice, I've alluded to this several times. You are yet do address this. I honestly don't understand you raising the issue of open borders. For the record, I do not sympathize with anti-immigration sentiments and tend to be on the side of free migration in these matters. I'm just not seeing the relevance here. If it's true that rawlseans are opposed then that's where I part ways with them. I also find it strange that they would, as this would appear to be contrary to the principle of siding with the weakest part of the equation.
+federico amadeo I don't think the sociological analysis is tangential as you say. It forms the building block of this theory and if found dubious, it threatens your entire claim. In any case, I think Rawlsians should be focused on open bordrs given the massive disparity (which you find abhorrent) between a Haitian and even a poor American. Practically every Rawlsian seems to be opposed to that which makes me question their honesty. (There's a Vox video of Berne Saders claiming: "Opn bordrs? That's a righ wng proposal." while Nozickian and Rothbardian libertarians are under constant fire for supporting something "so nutty".)
federico amadeo (7 months ago)
"It seems that your entire argument is predicated upon the person's feelings to decide the 'class level'". I don't know why it seems that way. I've alluded a couple of times to why I think wealth (in this sense) is the key register. Basically, it conditions significantly one's de facto exercise of their rights and citizenry (i.e. it's tied to a lot of other factors you mentioned this time around, no matter how relative you want to be about the word "wealth"). Granted, I haven't offered a thorough sociological analysis as to which are the key components in understanding the social class as a phenomenon. I don't think, however, that it's necessary to go off on such a thematic tangent in order to grasp that this is not merely a matter of my "feelings".
tcorourke2007 (8 months ago)
1) Prohibiting people from giving you money and 2) taking the money they give you and returning it to them ARE two different things... with exactly the same effect.
LyConsigliere (9 months ago)
Does anyone know where to find glasses like those!?
PurpleHeartBMG (3 months ago)
My Aunt Sherry
SYED ADEEL HUSSAIN (11 months ago)
Charity is a voluntary act! no one can force me to share my wealth. Why cannot Socialists understand this basic principle? Islam has Zakat which is used to redistribute wealth. But here we are not talking about Islam. I am only too concerned with the radical views that exist in Economics even today.
+Jasper Nuboer Stop pretending that Norway is a progressive utopia. It is not. It is libertarian than most countries in the world. That it has state sponsored Health Care system does not cause it to be progressive all of a sudden. Denmark frequently tops the list of economic freedom behind Hong Kong and Singapore. OTOH, Venezuela, pre liberalisation China and India, most of South Asia and Africa are built on Socialist principles and recommendations. Have you stepped foot in a Fabian Socialist Nation? I have. I know how the economy gets stagnated, people starve to death and are treated like some instruments for some grand project progressives have in their mind. You think India sucks because it is not Socialist enough? No it sucks because it IS Social Democratic enough. Read India's constitution, it describes itself as a secular, SOCIALIST country. Regulated markets, check, reckless wealth redistribution, check, unfree trade, check. All of them in India, China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka.... Markets are trampled left and right. People are the subordinates of the state. That is not a free society. Your misfortunes are not justifications for statism. Your statism is NOT the ONLY form of statism, if yours is justified, every other is too. Which would then lead me to ask, why do you want to support a system that has subjugated millions of people? You want the lowest to enjoy prosperity? Let markets prevail. Without healthy markets, you are condemning humanity to poverty and death. And given your track record(100 million), it's not absurd to treat your proposals with contempt.
@Jasper Nuboer  Perhaps you are the first progressive statist in the world to admit that you are applying force and I should commend you for that. However. You are making false equivalencies. An employer employee relationship is voluntary. That the employee potentially has no other employment opportunities is not the same as forcing someone to be employed under someone. The former's an unfortunate situation, the latter is slavery. Don't pretend they are the same. "Because really, how much choice do we have?" It's not about how much choice we have. It's whether we have choice. Incidentally, if you live in a western country, it happens to be bountiful. (And where it's not, it's due to idiots like you mucking the economy of that country.) Progressives FEEL like they have no choice. That YOU feel like a victim does not mean you are actually a victim. If you are asking a beautiful woman to pay for makeup of the average looking woman, you are applying force to satisfy your personal feelings. If you are justified in the application of force, so is a religious statist who prevents the sale of drugs for harmone replacement therapy. That you compensated the doctor does not nullify your initiation of aggression. I cannot claim payment from my neighbor because I mowed his lawn a without asking him. Bottom line, if you are justified in the application of force, so is a religious nutjob. She can use the state to prevent the marriage of gay people, forbid the circulation of trans people's drugs, regulate the usage of video games. The ACTION matters, not the reason behind performing the action.
+Jasper Nuboer So an ugly person, using your system of ethics, can demand, like it's her birthright, sex from an unwilling hot person? Or they should pay for her plastic surgery, right?
Jasper Nuboer (7 months ago)
Punish? I never said there should be punishment. But you will never convince me all wealth is acquired in a fair way (even if we pretend criminals dont exist). What would be fair if the wealth that is generated by natural resources is devided among the population, instead of a giant portion of that wealth going straight in the pocket of whoever found it. Look at how Norway treats their natural resources. The American way is so incredibly rigged towards those that started in a good position. Don't try to give me Venezuela as a example, I'm not advocating communism. What my solution would be towards the farmers would be a wellfare state, where those that are unlucky because of circumstances they had no power over are compensated by those that were extremely lucky because of circumstances they had no power over. Proportional taxes, where the rich pay for the luck they recieved. They don't have to give away all their wealth, but a fair portion. In my opinion, this is the only real fair way of taxing. True wealth comes from the middle class, not from an overbloated elite that hoard only more for themselves. Would you FORCE a doctor to perform surgery on a suffering patient even if the doctor refused to do it. Yes I fucking would. Much like how employers force employees to do their fucking job. Is that slavery too? Oh but they get paid. So not slavery. But they had to take the job or starve, so it it slavery again? The slavery argument is a dumb one, and it proves nothing. All of us are forced to do stuff in life. You could easily argue that in the current system we are all wageslaves. Because really, how much choice do we have? You'll quickly find that only the succesfull have a choice. Look, I'm not trying to argue we should make everyone in the world ugly so it's fair. I'm trying to argue that those that were born beautifull buy some makeup for the ugly.(without it being charity)
+Jasper Nuboer Finally, even if a family that steps on disease suffers, what right do they have to punish the other innocent family? The rich family neither caused the disease, nor propagated it. Would you FORCE a doctor to perform surgery on a suffering patient even if the doctor refused to do it? If so, how does that make you any different from slaveholders? Pretending force is not force is something Nozick cannot do.
Kamalpreet Kaur (11 months ago)
What would be Nozick's argument in context of global justice. Because he seems to really start on an arbitrary​ position. The colonial experience has actually made many nations worst off. And now by simply ridding the Imperial powers of any responsibility will actually be unjust. Because till an extent these countries have resulted in the underdevelopment of many nations.
Jasper Nuboer (8 months ago)
Nozick would argue the exact same for global as for national justice. The location of your body is irrelevent. Minimal government that ensures the liberty of it's subject
kamalpreet kaur Nope. If anything, colonialism is antithetical to Nozickian ideas. Underdeveloped countries lack free markets and voluntary transactions, which Nozick is the strongest proponent of, instead underdeveloped countries like India have directly taken off Rawlsian ideas to produce mass starvation, death and misery. Leftist ideologues have produced the most number of deaths in history.
MarquÉs PerformanceS (11 months ago)
What a charming man
PREDATOR 2.0 (1 year ago)
Nozick = most ignorant person
Pedro Hack (10 months ago)
Not an argument
Katharyn Cairns (1 year ago)
Hi does anyone know if there is a book or journal which outlines Dworkin's comments "this book is an attempt to show how far an appealing and altruistic and humane political theory can be generated consistent with the basic posture of liberalism on this conception namely that it is neutral among the various personal moralities that various people hold"i'd be very grateful
PurpleHeartBMG (3 months ago)
Read Rawls
harlon57 (1 year ago)
If people who had no life experience were to design a constitution, how could it not be a disaster? Liberals like to believe that the welfare state helps the poor. Conservatives tend to believe that the welfare state incentivizes destructive behavior that increases misery. Arguing those positions, as well as others, produces a government that makes more sense than any that would be dreamt up by people who've learned nothing from prior attempts at governance. That this "philosopher" Rawls suggests it would be a noble experiment with an awesome outcome is laughable. There is nothing admirable about the concept that people with no experience should draft the rules by which we live.
Colin Jones (3 months ago)
Ignorant person who doesn’t understand why the United States has such a high poverty rate and doesn’t understand Rawl’s basic premise of amnesia says what?
Aart de Vletter (6 months ago)
Sad to see people have such harsh conclusions based on a few minute explanation of the opus magnum of one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. Maybe try to ask some critical questions, investigate some arguments in favor or against before you start blobbing about nobility, admirablity or philosophy in general for that matter. You probably have a good point somewhere in your thoughts (I suspect you seriously doubt this way of theorizing that Rawls employs - as do I, and many with me/us), but at the moment you are making a fool out of yourself.
Jasper Zeitz (7 months ago)
I suggest you read the book and quote that, instead of calling Rawls stupid before having read his actual words and quoting someone who paraphrased him.
harlon57 (11 months ago)
He says, "They have a total amnesia...They don't know who they are, they don't know whether they are old or young, men or women, black or white, talented or stupid. In particular, and this is most important, they don't know what their own moralities are. Each one has some conception of what he wants his life to be like...what his conceptions are of sexual morality and so forth, but no one knows what his views are on those questions." "It's as if they were separated from their own personalities by a veil of ignorance." That's the dumbest possible place to start after three thousand years of trial and error, learning what does and does not work so well considering that most people are less then usefully informed in life and are most often willing to be led by those who are some combination of bright, talented, cunning, aggressive and connected people who DO have a preference and taste for power. Having people who know nothing about what we've learned is utter philosophical masturbation. Amnesiacs in this hypothetical are worse than the uninformed sloths who vote now, they know even less about what has or has not worked.
Vito Alberto Lippolis (11 months ago)
It's not what the experiment says, I reckon. Excuse my English, I'll try to make my point in the best English I know. The experiment is about subjects that actually lived a life and experienced thing: they remember all of their experiences, but they cannot tell which part they had in the facts they remember. I'll try with an example: nonetheless the veil of ignorance, they clearly remember having experienced monarchy, but cannot actually remember if they were the king or just one of the many subjects. At this point, everybody, even the "forgetful" king, would choose not to risk being one of the many subjects and would consider monarchy not a good option. I hope I made my point quite clear. Have a nice day!
Nigel Straw (1 year ago)
As a Social Liberal that doesn't have a high view on Nozick, the Libertarians/Conservatives of America would be much smarter to ditch Ayn Rand in favor of him
Barklord (4 months ago)
Is it jealousy to point out that the voluntary-ness of market exchange is only a very small part of the process of markets? Certainly we can all think of ways that markets incentivize some things while dis-incentivizing others leading to an evaluation which shows little consistent correlation between primary values and money exchanged.
Alli YAFF (5 months ago)
My professor literally said just that.
Virtue E (5 months ago)
Nigel Straw I can understand disagreeing with Nozick, but not having a high view on him? He's completely respecting your entire autonomy and property, which is at the least commendable. And take a look around at the people on this planet, and you can't even respect him? I disagree with Rawls, at least to an extent, but I respect him and understand why he believes how he does.
Sherlockcipher (6 months ago)
+Ricardo Martinez Indian government has decided they know what's good for the housing market and to limit the number of houses constructed and the price of rent. This leads to the slum conditions we observe today. Where?
Ricardo Martinez (6 months ago)
Sherlockcipher When prices go up, that's a signal to entrepreneurs to enter the market. They would create new housing that meets the needs of their customers and this would bring down rent prices. Why don't we see this? Because the Indian government has decided they know what's good for the housing market and to limit the number of houses constructed and the price of rent. This leads to the slum conditions we observe today. I am not claiming that without government the poor of Mumbai would be living in luxury but rather the social programs intended to help them actually hurt them. That's economics for you.
IsaacDarcheMusic (1 year ago)
wealth inequality violates the categorical imperative
So what? Wealth inequality also violates the emotions of butthurt leftists. That does not justify force. Punishing the innocent is wrong. Especially when your reasons have no basis other than your subjective feelings. If you are authorised to use force, so am I. I can make up all the reasons I want to justify the use of force in violating others' freedoms. Want to try religious statism?
IsaacDarcheMusic (10 months ago)
the categorical imperative: a general analytic abstraction that could be applied in many particular ways. It simply means "can you will this if everyone wills this." Let's say someone wills "I will consume more goods and services than other people." If everyone willed that, then everyone would be consuming more goods than everyone else. But that is impossible. If everyone is consuming more than everyone else, then by definition it isn't more than everyone else. Therefore, to will "I will consume more goods and services than other people" violates the categorical imperative. I'm sure Nozick has some ad hoc cop-out mechanism to avoid this problem. I could care less about Nozick's ad hoc bullshit. I'm simply pointing out that Nozick has no basis whatsoever for deriving his system from Kant.
Jordan Bikes (1 year ago)
Wealth inequality violates relative morality? I think the categorical imperative could be a justification for redistribution, actually
Absurd Hero (1 year ago)
She love me bcuz my "D workin" 😂😂
IsaacDarcheMusic (1 year ago)
have you ever heard of a night watchman who will work for free?
Stotzism (6 months ago)
​+IsaacDarcheMusic _"Libertarianism makes no sense on it's own terms. Taxation pays for the protection of liberties. No taxes, no liberties. Libertarianism is incoherent."_ My first impression is that you misunderstand minarchism and are ignorant of the diversity of libertarian political philosophy. The only people who hold "no taxes, no liberties" as an absolute first principle are anarcho-capitalists. Most libertarians are statists by definition, and therefore advocate for some minimal form of taxation that funds the state. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of libertarianism, but we must not conflate the two because not all forms of libertarianism are anarcho-capitalism. Nozick's position (and the position of just about all minarchists and small government libertarians) is as follows: P1) In order to maintain the rights to life, liberty, and property, they need to be protected. P2) The emergence of the state is inevitable (or less radical libertarians may say required for certain cases). P3) The existence of the state requires taxation, for without taxation you cannot have public institutions or services and therefore no state. C) Thus, a minimal degree of taxation is a necessary evil so the state can protect its citizens from the initiation of force (aggression), theft, breach of contract, fraud and to enforce private property laws. It's important to note that liberty is always defined by its limits. Too much freedom can be a bad thing. For example, unbridled freedom implies the freedom to murder, rape, pillage, etc. Liberty and freedom are on a spectrum, and I would argue that the nightwatchman state is the greatest net freedom we can obtain.
Ian Claudio (6 months ago)
+IsaacDarcheMusic lol wtf your definition of free market is so wrong? I thought free market is a place with minimal intervation from the government, and the agents inside the market are free make their own prices, hence why you pay +%tax for the good u sell, and there are interventions from the governement if the unfairness is too great to be left alone. But this is not the pure FREE MARKET, a true free market government has no intervention
Ian Claudio (6 months ago)
+Voluntaryist Minarcho-Anarchist but then you would go back to pure capitalism?
+IsaacDarcheMusic WTH are you talking? No voluntary transaction proceeds without both parties benefiting. Perhaps in your jealous eyes that might not be the case, but in the reality we live in, that is. I suppose, why is it that you so strongly want a free market in sex and gender? Where everyone can freely choose their partners and body structures? Not that I don't want it, why is it that you are incapable of understanding that what you want in one specific case(that happens to be oh so convenient for your class struggle) and what free markets bring in ALL cases are the same?
IsaacDarcheMusic (10 months ago)
And a true recognition of human nature is called Nash Equilibrium- which leads to a smaller pie more evenly split. Nash Equilibrium exists throughout all biological organisms. Pareto efficiency is fairly tale pipe dream wish that only soft headed wishful thinkers believe in.
Retrogamer71 (1 year ago)
Ha ha Dictatorship apologist
Lucas Davenport (1 year ago)
I’ve never quite understood how ‘intellect’ fits in to the veil of ignorance. Do the individuals know their intellects once the veil is lifted? Do they not need to use their intellect to engage in the discussion about justice? Do we assume all participants have the same intellect? If so, at what level?
Joe Schmo (1 year ago)
Meta tron Yeah, finders-keepers is a tough nut to crack.
Meta tron (1 year ago)
Its hard to see how Rawls establishes the right to wealth redistribution though.
Joe Schmo (1 year ago)
The most important consideration, IMO, is one's RELATIVE standing in the imagined society. Rawls makes it clear that imagined participants in the original position are competent and self interested, but not necessarily equal, in intellect or any other quality.
paganserenade (1 year ago)
It seems to me a consequence of Rawls's view is that abortion on demand is unjust. That is, if I'm behind the veil of ignorance and I don't know how I will be in the society in which we will live, I have to consider the possibility that I will be an infant or an unborn child in that society.. Now getting killed because I'm inconvenient is a more serious harm than being a woman who cannot get an abortion when the fetus's not being killed is inconvenient to her So to the extent that I'm rationally self-interested I would opt for protecting infants and fetuses--though I might opt for abortion rights when the woman's life or health is at stake. I don't know how Rawls escapes this consequence. Perhaps someone who knows the text can help.
손Sharon (3 months ago)
I didn't read The Theory of Justice. I just learn his view from my school teacher. According to what I learned, Rawls don't care about problem dealing with 'which is more ethical?' or 'which is more understandable when it comes to human's right?'. The veil of ignorance can't be used when we discuss about ethics. I think he suggested it as a means of finding way to achieve a fair 'distribution'.
Ian Claudio (6 months ago)
+Voluntaryist Minarcho-Anarchist please elaborate, Mr. Crackpot Person, you have no arguments so the only words in your mouth are those. You dont even know the guy well, be like nozick, he had valid arguments...
calvinjones (7 months ago)
The only reason you should listen to anyones ideas is to see if there is something about them that strikes you as more true than your own ideas. If you don't wish to challenge your own thinking then there is certainly no need to look at what others believe. If on the other hand you wish to get at or near to the truth on a subject then new ideas are to be taken seriously. If an argument is made (whatever its originators supposed motive) that you cannot meet then your own ideas will cease to be rationally grounded.
Jasper Zeitz (7 months ago)
You might want to back-up this rant with valid arguments, because right now all I can see is someone brushing off the ideas of a philosopher in two short sentences, using insults instead of arguments, which quite frankly is "not the way we roll" here.
Jasper Nuboer (8 months ago)
A fetus that is aborted never knows any suffering. Is it better to let a women go through childbirth, only to see her child die a couple months later due to diseases (that can be discoverd in the womb)? Is it better to let a women have a child from a rapist, knowing the child will be hated by the mother?Should a meth addict be forced to have a child that she can't care for? Would you want to be born into such a family? I'd prefer not to live at all over being a meth baby. Children that did not get a good place to call him often have miserable lifes filled with addictions and crime. When speaking from behind the veil of ignorance, you can not know what kind of family you are born into. Would you prefer no suffering, and no pleasure, over a lifetime of suffering? And thus, the veil of ignorance gives us no arguement for anti-arbortion.
neg atory (1 year ago)
I wish they talked about the monopolization of violence more, which is a core idea to Rawl's idea of liberty
Karl Young (1 year ago)
Given Nozik’s criterion for legitimate property ownership
IsaacDarcheMusic (10 months ago)
lol. Degree cannot be turned into kind. This is silly. You are such a silly person.
IsaacDarcheMusic Oh then OTHERS’ property fell out of the sky then? Others worked to MAKE property and BUY property. If you want to steal others property, so can others steal YOUR property. Let the state(progressivism) or the mob (“democratic socialism”) decide what you eat and how much to eat and then you’d come back running to liberty
IsaacDarcheMusic (10 months ago)
I buy all my food. Most food in the US is subsidized by the federal government anyway. Farmers get paid no matter what the market price. smh. Some delusions are more consistent than others.....
IsaacDarcheMusic Why do you want property if you are causing exclusion? In this case food is the private property.
IsaacDarcheMusic Oh NOW you are the owner of yourself and require property in the form of food. But when it comes to OTHERS rights, screw them right? Only an intellectually deficient idealogy can make so many mental gymnastics. You also couldn’t answer my questions because your dogma cannot. Sorry but clinging onto such worthless piece of crap only hurts you. Shed your delusions.
Kilgore482 (1 year ago)
A thoroughly articulate, thoughtful summary of extraordinarily fundamental ideas. One cannot imagine contemporary academics - of which I am a successful one - speaking so intelligently and accessibly in a public forum. An artifact from a bygone, more civilized era than the crude simulacrum we inhabit today.
Jasper Zeitz (4 months ago)
+D Neville Sassy. I like you :)
Dream Weaver (5 months ago)
+harlon57 Only people capable of critical thought.
Joe Palau (6 months ago)
Let us pause. Dawkins does the work of a public intellectual with excellence. How did his skill come to be? The simple answer is through the intuitional values and traditions of an Oxbridge Education, one which values such expository skills and argumentation from the firm belief that such skills are the bedrock of public service and informed citizenship. The goal is to inculcated the values and develop the skills needed for public service and informed citizenship. Contrast that with the notion higher education is for preparing students for jobs, worker roles in commerce and industry. Not leadership, mind you, but as worker bees serving the interests of equity shareholders- corporate shareholders and their private equity. Giving our public institutions over to the service of private wealth is a mistake for which we pay dearly as citizens with common interests and shared concerns. It need not be this way as it wasn’t always so. The challenge lies in mustering the Public Will to return to democratic values that we see on display here. Not in conclusions but in the value of clear articulation of what is at stake in matters of public policy and governance. Magee and Dawkins brings these concerns to mind.
Oners82 (9 months ago)
Kilgore482 "One cannot imagine contemporary academics - of which I am a successful one - speaking so intelligently and accessibly in a public forum." There are plenty of BRILLIANT public intellectuals today so I'm not sure where you get the idea from that they are a product of a bygone age...
harlon57 (1 year ago)
If all the philosophers on the planet suddenly fell off, would anyone notice?
Broken Stitch (1 year ago)
...I don't have anything meaningful to say, and this channel deserves more views.
Juan Pablo Fernández (4 months ago)
what about his glasses
Matthew Frazier (1 year ago)
I always love hearing about Rawls and Nozick because I love both of them so much as thinkers. It is a sort of dilemma😂😂 I think that either of them are better than anything we have had in America
Mark Crawford (6 months ago)
IsaacDarcheMusic (10 months ago)
They're both american, dumbass
Matthew Frazier (1 year ago)
Nozick is not THAT opposed to Rawls IMO. My reading may be weird, and I may think that Nozick is about more than the devil’s advocacy you might get in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, he’s actually something much different than we think... Or perhaps I merely produce a monstrous offspring in my interpretation. Nonetheless, there is only interpretation.
vanessa98 (6 months ago)
VerySexyPenguin (1 year ago)
Why not follow the video up by discussing these ideas with others? https://discord.gg/eU4GmhH

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.