/lit/ - Literature

>>11528919
>doesn't viciously hate women and non-whites
We hate the cuck

>>11528926
The alt right doesn't even visciously hate women and non-whites , so what kind of ubermensch are you?

>>11528930
I'm white. Probably more than I can say for you

>>11528930
>>11528938
>>11528926
Please, don't get into a stupid argument about this.

>>11528950
Shut up faggot

>>11528919
Boring bourgeois shill.

>dude lmao just like IGNORE OBJECTIVE CONDITIONS if you want to be fair mmmkay?

Dishonest faggot.

>>11528919
He was BTFO by Rawls. Unfortunately plebs fooled by his sophistry tend to think the opposite is true.

He seemed ok in philosophy on high school

>>11529233
>He was BTFO by Rawls. Unfortunately plebs fooled by his sophistry tend to think the opposite is true.
Nah, in reality the jostling between the two just proved the untenable holes in both men's theories. I think Nozick actually admitted it in his later years anyway.

>>11528926
Is there any legitimate intellectual that does this?

>>11528919
Smart boi & the only lolbertarian I respect.

>>11528919

Pretty cool in all aspects except for his political philosophy, which is terrible. He even admits that it has no actual use due to historic injustices rendering his entire theory of justice in holdings pointless IRL. I don't buy his reasoning of how judiciary and policing would end up in the state of necessary monopoly without any violation of rights, and he doesn't seriously engage the very easy retort to the libertarian, that if they don't like the state they're living in, they're free to move. His analysis of this idea is so profoundly uncharitable that for a moment, I thought Anarchy, State and Utopia was an ironic work of shitposting. It literally goes like this:

>if you're allowed to move out of a state, but not stay and opt out of taxation, does that mean that the state has some higher ideal of justice that also allows them to kidnap foreigners and turn them into tax-paying citizens xD?

Any kind of social contract theorist will have an easy time outright dismissing most of his political philosophy. The rest will have an easy time realizing that his libertarianism doesn't, and indeed cannot, pertain to any actual society now or in the future, due to historical injustice.

>>11531365
I don't think Nozick was so interested in forwarding a practical political philosophy so much as being able to find weaknesses in the ones formulated by others.

>>11531439

Might be, but I'd only consider that a partial truth. He does spend a good deal of time delineating the how's of libertarianism. Further, I'm not exactly sure what weaknesses he identifies with other systems. A communist might be rattled by the work, but as I mentioned, most contract theorists will find it easy to reject most of Nozick's arguments. Rawls was the hot shit when ASU was published. But as far as I remember, Nozick says somewhere that the Rawlsian difference principle might be a good bet when it comes to formulating a principle of rectification of historical injustices, making ASU not so much a work showing the weakness of this system as much as a different framework in which to justify it.

ASU does give some reasoning against communism, provides an alternative to individualist anarchism, but apart from those rather incidental features I don't see it primarily as a work identifying weaknesses in other systems.

>>11531365
>Any kind of social contract theorist will have an easy time outright dismissing most of his political philosophy.
But do they? The entire notion of an implicit social contract has long been reliant on tenuous appeals to rationality rather than a formalized logic.

>>11528919
I began to look through Anarchy, State and Utopia.
I landed on that part in which he's proposing a thought experiment where people can just opt out of any society and start their own. The idea is that this system would settle at some point, with everyone ending up at a satisfactory society, and then that reveal the set of optimal arrangements for human society.
The big problem is that in this experiment, as people are 'shopping around' for a society he supposes they would make their evaluation based on a quid-pro-quo ethos. You'll always look for a society where the duties demanded of you are less than or equal to the rights afforded you.
This is blatantly false in my conception.
Where he is presupposing a selfish human nature, based on fair exchanges, I see as self-evident that the foundation of any stable human society is sacrifice.

Dropped him right there.

>>11528919
He's cute, for a lolbertarian.

>>11530868
Any intellectual worth calling legitimate sweetie.

>>11533787
>sweetie
well there goes this thread, fuckin sweetie guy is here again shit

>>11532621
Look at this dude
>I see as self evident
wait till you see the
>the foundation of any human society
oh no no no no
>is sacrifce
AHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>11534298
>Thinking it is just one guy.
You've got a lot to learn, sweetie. ;)

bump

>>11528919
I don't think of him t b h.

>>11529233
>He was BTFO'd by Rawls

>dude wilt chamberlain lmao

michael huemer "problem of political authority"
normie friendly and bretty gud imo

What is it about analytic political philosophy that makes every other form of political philosophy other than it, including /pol/, seem like a better way of thinking about politics?

>>11540405
It is the autism.

>>11538961
I mean he ruined Great Britain.

>>11528919
More like Robert Nothanks

>>11528919
I think he looks like David Byrne.

>>11541157
Based.

>>11539788
Tell us more about Huemer? I mean since you keep shilling his stuff on here.

>>11539788
Anyone else worth noting?