That's it lads, I got it right

Looks like Clint Eastwood.

youtube.com/watch?v=XEnkDEgALGI

>non-trivial

Have you studied mathematics? Cooool

>le ebin materialist equality man

5. invent new words and entirely new language that people have to learn in order to understand wtf you are trying to say

Rawls is far from what you consider liberal academia. He was a philosopher brought up in the analytic tradition. Read some passages in ToJ, it's an extremely rigorous book.

It's not ethics, its political philosophy. If you find Rousseau, Hobbes and such boring then ok.

He also had alot of influence on economics. He is easily the most important political philsopher in the 20th century.

>Read some passages in ToJ, it's an extremely rigorous book.
It presents itself as one. Read what he has to say about primary social goods and tell me there's any real rigor in ToJ. He just throws out platitudes about democracy values. The difference principle is supported by one of the worst arguments to become famous in the history of philosophy, that is, the Veil of Ignorance, a pointless thought experiment that proves nothing at all.

Of course he throws out democratic values; ToJ is basically a theory that justifies social democracy. This doesn't mean that they are just random.

Anyway, why do you think the veil of ignorance is the worst thought experiment? I always found it hard to argue against it.

Sure m8

the veil of ignorance is just the rerun of kant's categorical imperative

LE KEK XDDD

>sophist cuckery

bergtarians and the far left are the only competent political philosophers.

Normie politics just isn't about theory

I didn't call them "random."
Why do you find the VoI compelling? The VoI itself isn't something he argues for, he uses it to argue for the difference principle. I've just never found a good reason to think that either 1) people in the Veil of Ignorance have anything at all in common with the people who are actually in positions to found societies, and that this is too much of a gap to base policy on (as has been done by Rawlsians), and 2) I see no reason to think that people behind the VoI would choose to organize society according to the difference principle, and not according to welfare egalitarianism, or political-economic desertism, to name a couple positions. Maybe you can convince me.

At the end of the day, I find analytic social and political philosophy to be dull. I think this is a problem because society and politics are not the cut and dry, boring platitudes steeped in big words that Rawls uses to make his arguments.
The difference principle, the thing Rawls is advocating, is also not well supported by the argument involving the VoI.

What?
I swear the shitposting on Veeky Forums becomes less and less coherent with every passing week.

I love Nozick and I'm probably closer to him ideologically than to Rawls, but you have to admit his retaliation to Rawls takes the form of begging the question rather than direct refutation. In the end, what Nozick offers is pseudo-contractualist variation on the theme of natural rights; assuming a naturalist language is entirely at odds with Rawl's conception of rationality, and as such doesn't really respond to his core arguments.
In other words, Rawls is telling us what's the best way to peel a banana, while Nozick answers with "apples are tastier anyway".

That doesn't look like an argument

Have you read AS&U?

No

The guy you are responding to here. To be honest I haven't directly read either, only read a bit about them in the Oxford introduction to political philosophy. That's a great way to explain the two. I did find myself aligning ideologically somewhat closer to Nozick too. Is AS&U worth reading for a layman?

Not who you are responding to, but I know a good deal about Nozick. I would say AS&U is definitely worth it to read. And if you don't want to read the whole thing, you could probably skip chapters 4-6. Chapter 7, Distributive Justice, I think it the most important chapter, so read that if you're really pressed for time.

Nozick essentially argues for libertarianism or the "minimal state" in AS&U. So I would definitely say it's worth reading as a layman, be that because you want to argue against libertarians or you are one and you'd like to hear libertarian arguments.

Definitely check it out.

I'd say I'm in the middle ground between libertarianism and a large state. Kimda the government provides a decent minimum of opportunity/positive rights and provides goods which markets undersupply while otherwise letting people enjoy their negative rights. Any books exploring these views? I'll definitely look at AS&U

How can the market ever undersupply anything? Isn't supply defined by quantities on the market?

The difference between private and social costs/benefits.normal markets can also oversupply things, when ever a trade between two individuals has an adverse effect on a 3rd party.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

I am not sure if I understand your views, so I can't really suggest you a book. There are only a finite number of worthwhile political philosophers though.

Hobbes
Locke
Rousseau
Hume
Mill
Marx
Gauthier
Rawls
Nozick
Pateman (Sorta)
Mills (Sorta)
Waltzer (Sorta)

I suggest checking out what each of these philosophers are about and then reading their most famous works.

Thanks!

>>I'd say I'm in the middle ground between libertarianism and a large state.
yes, like most people who want free stuff but do not wish to pay the goods as much as the next guy.

these philosophers always fail to motivate their stance about imposing their views on other.

Teachers of Philosophy today are little worms dumping their fantasies and hoping that somebody will pay them to continue to fantasize.

>mfw

Not the guy etc. AS&U is a lot more readable than ToJ, but I would still advise a selective reading of the core chapters like the other guy said, and maybe even some introductory material (the Oxford thing sounds good). Also don't skip the introduction as it's pretty important and helps to illuminate the main argument.

HAVING SAID THAT, Hayek is better :^)