/lit/ - Literature

>>5876545
Simple answer is no. These people try to answer questions in ways that the vast majority of people doesn't and have never cared about. How do I know it ? Just look around you, at best the ideas of some philosophers are gonna be dropped to support simple and common views.

>>5876587
But why is this such a commonly accepted view? Even most /lit/fags seem to think it's true of Nietzsche, and there are plenty of Marxists here.

>>5876545

I don't know if they're really the most influential philosophers ever. The reason those three philosophers are usually grouped together is thanks to Paul Ricoeur and his essay on The Hermeneutics of Suspicion, discussing the impact of their critiques of religion.

His point was that after those three philosophers, it was difficult (though not impossible; Ricoeur hmself was Christian) to believe as simply as people had before, and arguably this is the cause of our shift away from a religious culture which has been a profound shift over the last 100 years. Its difficult to say though, whether they were truly causative or just reflecting a broader shift in the culture.

>>5876604
Most /lit/fags are morons.

That's the 3 people I'd choose for three intelectuals who destroyed philosophy.

>>5876856
Why wouldn't you choose Wittgenstein and Russel?

>>5876856
philosophically hegel is by far the worst offender of those three

>>implying it wasn't stirner who changed the entire world

>>5876902

>>5876545
Nah, those were the vulgarizers of philosophy.

>>5876959
>Implying that Engels wasn't behind him telling him that it was a great idea

Nietzsche yes. Sigmund Fraud and George Fagel, no.

>>5876545
Freud and Marx are characterized by Foucault as creating discourses. Nietzsche was obviously a seminal thinker too. All of them were developed very good frameworks for critiques.

Not sure how you can say they're more influential than Hegel, Kant, Wittgenstein or Heidegger though.

>>5877045

Wiggy wrote like two books. Hegel was the grandsire of communism. Heidegger was a hack.

>>5877049
>Heidegger was a hack
>mfw

>>5877049
Wittgenstein's two books were the foundation of analytic philosophy.
Without Hegel there wouldn't have been a Marx.
How exactly was Heidegger a hack?

Marx and Nietzsche yes, Freud no

>>5877059
>Without Hegel there wouldn't have been a Marx.

My point exactly.

And most of Heidegger's good ideas were lifted from Schopenhauer, but without Arthur's trademark lucidity and rigor.

>>5877072
>My point exactly.
What do you have against Communism? Do you hate workers and love oligarchs?

>>5877070

Freud haters need to wake up and face the discourse

>>5877076

That ridiculous strawman won't fly here.

Communism led to the deaths of tens of millions, and economically it has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could subscribe to it.

>>5877079
go to bed jacques

>>5877072
Yeah sure, but you're kidding yourself if you think Heidegger didn't make tons of modern continental thought possible.

>>5877094

>communism didn't create a global utopia in the past 150 years
>communism is therefore untenable

Idiots please go

>>5877094
>only an intellectual could subscribe to it.

Yeah or the revolutionary working class.

>>5877076

>Implying communism didn't create 10 times more oligarchs than it ruined

All it did was move money from private hands into government hands. The workers got nothing. Lenin and Marx were both about as bourgeois as they come.

>>5877104

>led to the deaths of 100 million people
>something that should be tried again

Pick uno Karl

itt: people think Lenin and Stalin weren't capitalists

>>5877116
ITT: people thinking marxism and leninism are the same thing

>>5877098

'Modern' as in 20th century philosophy?

Yeah, we can dispense with his influence. 20th century has been disastrous for philosophy.

>>5877094
>Communism led to the deaths of tens of millions
So has capitalism, and it doesn't apologize for it.
>and economically it has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could subscribe to it.
It isn't supposed to be measured by the economic opportunities it creates, it's supposed to be measured by the damage it does to capitalism. It's a failure there, though.

>>5877125
>So has capitalism

[citation needed]

>>5877129
If you attribute millions of deaths to Communism and then say that capitalism has no blood on its hands, you're clearly abiding by a double standard.

>>5877135

Lol Google death attributed to communism, then come back here and tell me capitalism has caused comparable loss of life.

>>5877151
>https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100511190540AAwJwUs
>If communism killed 100 million, then did capitalism kill 1 billion people?
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
>Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.

1 billion > 100 million.

>>5877135
The free market doesn't legally murder people. Only the state does that.

>>5877151

https://maoistrebelnews.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/1-6-billion-killed-by-capitalism/

>>5877175

There is no such thing as a market that is free from the state

>>5877166

>capitalism is the cause of all war in the western world

My sides. You can't actually believe this horseshit.

Communism led to mass starvation and mass slaughter. Just look at how many people died under Stalin, for starters.

>>5877135
I wouldn't attribute the deaths of people to economic ideologies as much as I would attribute it to the governments operating under those systems. Communism seems to have a knack for murdering vast amounts of people within very brief timespans

>communists making every thread devolve into their self-obsession

>witness the ever madder howling of the libertarian dogs who are baring their fangs more and more obviously and roam through the alleys of western culture. They seem opposites of the peacefully industrious democrats and ideologists of redistribution, and even more so of the doltish philosophasters and brotherhood enthusiasts who call themselves socialists and want a “free society;” and anti-Semitic screamers but in fact they are at one with the lot in their thorough and instinctive hostility to every other form of society except that of the autonomous herd (even to the point of repudiating the very concepts of “master” and “servant”—ni dieu ni maître runs a socialist formula). They are at one in their tough resistance to every special claim, every special right and privilege (which means in the last analysis, every right: for once all are equal nobody needs “rights” any more). They are at one in their mistrust of punitive justice (as if it were a violation of those who are weaker, a wrong against the necessary consequence of all previous society). But they are also at one in the religion of pity, in feeling with all who feel, live, and suffer (down to the animal, up to “God”—the excess of a “pity with God” belongs in a democratic age). They are at one, the lot of them, in the cry and the impatience of pity, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, in their almost feminine inability to remain spectators, to let someone suffer. They are at one in their involuntary plunge into gloom and unmanly tenderness under whose spell the west seems threatened by a new Buddhism. They are at one in their faith in the morality of shared pity, as if that were morality in itself, being the height, the attained height of man, the sole hope of the future, the consolation of present man, the great absolution from all former guilt. They are at one, the lot of them, in their faith in the community as the savior, in short, in the herd, in “themselves”—

>>5877175
>The free market doesn't legally murder people.
That's implying an awful lot, isn't it? Allowing capitalists to pay their workers less than the wages they need to pay rent and buy food is essentially allowing them to murder people.

Stalin has the blood of millions on his hands indirectly, but I guess because they aren't using the coercive power of the state to starve people, capitalists are morally praiseworthy.
Also what >>5877184 said, the American state has always been a front for the capitalists.
>>5877187
>Communism led to mass starvation and mass slaughter.
So has every other economic system ever instituted.
I am looking at those numbers. I'm also looking at the larger figures under how many people have died under capitalist/liberal regimes.

>>5877187

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-death-tolls-of-socialism-and-capitalism.114760/

>communists derailing every thread into their self-obsession and false dichotomies

>witness the ever madder howling of the libertarian dogs who are baring their fangs more and more obviously and roam through the alleys of western culture. They seem opposites of the peacefully industrious democrats and ideologists of redistribution, and even more so of the doltish philosophasters and brotherhood enthusiasts who call themselves socialists and want a “free society;” and anti-Semitic screamers but in fact they are at one with the lot in their thorough and instinctive hostility to every other form of society except that of the autonomous herd (even to the point of repudiating the very concepts of “master” and “servant”—ni dieu ni maître runs a socialist formula). They are at one in their tough resistance to every special claim, every special right and privilege (which means in the last analysis, every right: for once all are equal nobody needs “rights” any more). They are at one in their mistrust of punitive justice (as if it were a violation of those who are weaker, a wrong against the necessary consequence of all previous society). But they are also at one in the religion of pity, in feeling with all who feel, live, and suffer (down to the animal, up to “God”—the excess of a “pity with God” belongs in a democratic age). They are at one, the lot of them, in the cry and the impatience of pity, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, in their almost feminine inability to remain spectators, to let someone suffer. They are at one in their involuntary plunge into gloom and unmanly tenderness under whose spell the west seems threatened by a new Buddhism. They are at one in their faith in the morality of shared pity, as if that were morality in itself, being the height, the attained height of man, the sole hope of the future, the consolation of present man, the great absolution from all former guilt. They are at one, the lot of them, in their faith in the community as the savior, in short, in the herd, in “themselves”—

>>5877184
Only because the state is an inherent disease of humanity up to this point. There could be.

>>5877072
>Schopenshit
>influental at all
Maybe he popularized easter religion at most. Nietzche are Oswald are like the most prominent students of his and they aren't the top of the top compared to Heidegger or Wittgenstein.

>>5877197
But Anon-kun, the state is God's march through history!

>>5877196
Why are you posting an old lady's revenge fantasies?

>>5877197

>there could be

Yeah, a pure oligarchy ruled by greed and economic tyranny would be rad, dude! Whoever can gain the system best deserves the best, amirite? Freedom!

>>5876545
The sublimation of the Other, within the realm of aesthetics, falsifies the old subject-object, substance ontology and makes it possible for Dasein to will against bad faith and for dietary, physio-authenticity. Studying these masters of suspicion dissolves the false dichotomy between will to power and will to nothingness, opening the Clearing where the ass of Being is lifted from the modern 21st century sitting apparatus and softened in moonlight as it dialectically moves from left step, right step, to pure Jogging.

>>5877190
>Allowing capitalists to pay their workers less than the wages they need to pay rent and buy food is essentially allowing them to murder people.

This is complete bullshit. No one is compelled to work for an abusive employers. And on top of that, you have misguided government policies that make a significant portion of the population unemployable.

>>5877190

Stalin literally had people lined up and shot. Haven't you heard of the purges?

>>5877209
>No one is compelled to work for an abusive employers.
Are you serious? If someone has to sell their work on the free market and there aren't any employers providing a proper living wage, that seems like being 'compelled to work for abusive employers.'
>>5877216
>What are strike breakers?
Do you seriously think that the capitalist order isn't maintained by force?

>>5877205
>economic tyranny

Lol no such thing bro. Everythings voluntary in a pure free market. And I'd take "economic tyranny" over tyranny of the state any day.

>>5877225
>Everythings voluntary in a pure free market
Toppest of keks. On a free market, you're subjected to the will of the owners of the means of production. The free market is free only to those who have goods to sell; all others are slaves to the fact that their only commodity is labor.
>And I'd take "economic tyranny" over tyranny of the state any day.
Why?

>>5877222
If there's no employers offering a competitive wage, there'd be no production. Companies would have to compete with each other for labor, benefiting the laborers themselves.

>>5877225
Don't be ridiculous.

>>5877201

You're out of your fucking mind.

Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche. The triumvirate of German idealism. These three moved the world, they have had an impact across many fields. Heidegger and Wiggy have had zero influence outside of academia.

>>5877222

Yeah, how awful to sit at home doing nothing while the working class provides for your needs through the instrument of welfare.

People who go on strike in Great Britain have unemployment compensation paid to their families by the government.

>>5877233
>Companies would have to compete with each other for labor, benefiting the laborers themselves.
There's no reason not to cut wages in a free market. If everyone is paying less than a living wage, how does that competition help the workers? What if someone doesn't want to dedicate their entire life to competing with everyone else who's forced to fight on the market?
>>5877236
>Not Kant, Hegel, Heidegger
Not that the idea of a 'triumvirate of German idealism' even makes sense. Fichte, Schelling, and Nietzsche deserve mention as much as Hegel or Heidegger do.
>Thinking Schopenhauer was actually influential
No one cared about his ideas other than Nietzsche when he was alive, and he's been the philosopher of resentment ever since his death.

>>5877230
A private entity's power is at the mercy of the consumer. They only have as much wealth as the market is willing to give them. The state can steal as much money as it wants from everyone to fund whatever they see fit, which a lot of the time is war and murder.

>libertarians
>on /lit/

>>5877240
>Yeah, how awful to sit at home doing nothing while the working class provides for your needs through the instrument of welfare.
I don't see your point here.
>People who go on strike in Great Britain have unemployment compensation paid to their families by the government.
Good. If they're striking with a good reason, there's a good reason for the government to step in.
>>5877245
Consumers are at the mercy of private entities to a greater degree than the opposite is true. Taxation isn't theft and anyone who thinks it is is lying to himself.

>>5877225

This. I'd sooner live under the tyranny of bankers and capitalists than under the tyranny of bureaucrats and parasitic public officials.

We can all agree that anarcho-syndicalism is the best system, right?

>>5877243
If the companies aren't offering a living wage they wouldn't be in business because no one would work there. For every company not offering a high enough wage there would be another that would be because of the competitive advantage of having smart people actually want to work for you. You understand how competition works right?

>>5877256
Ye.

Guns, Germs and Steel is probably a good book as a whole, though, even though I haven't read all of it :P

>>5877252

>literally sucking the cock of the apparatus that controls both you and the social order

Free market advocates are cavemen

>>5877256
pretty much

although kropotkinist ancom is p based too

no pasaran

>>5877243

You're completely clueless about the progression of idealism. Fichte and Schelling both propounded abortive digressions from the Idealism of Immanuel Kant.

This is undergraduate tier commentary dude.

>>5877257
>If the companies aren't offering a living wage they wouldn't be in business because no one would work there.
If they're the only companies there are, then people would have to work there.
>For every company not offering a high enough wage there would be another that would be because of the competitive advantage of having smart people actually want to work for you.
Not if there's no incentive to raise wages to that level.
>You understand how competition works right?
You understand that the tyranny of competition is no better than literal tyranny, right?
>>5877266
I haven't read it, either, but I have no interest in it. Chomsky is a cool guy.

Did I get it right using the comma this time, angsty anon-friend?

>>5877271
They're noteworthy idealists, though, which is why I included them in the list.

>>5877249

I'm saying that stupid government policies like welfare and minimum wage create more inequality than they remove.

You thick fuck

>>5877269

Yeah, caveman with the highest standards of living in human history.

Stay fucking mad

>>5877276
>I'm saying that stupid government policies like welfare and minimum wage create more inequality than they remove.
How so? Do you have numbers to back that up? Statistics? Anything other than your libertarian bias against the state?
The modern welfare state is certainly bloated, but the minimum wage seems like it's an absolute necessity in a truly civilized society. The state of affairs before it was instituted (i.e., the American Gilded Age) was far worse for the vast majority of people than it has been since its institution.

>>5877282
>Implying we live in a free market society
Stay ign'ant, libfag.

>>5877257

If a company is smart enough it can gain the system and outdo its competitors through political and social means, ie branding, propaganda, advertisement, corrupt deals etc. if these companies edge out competitors in such a fashion as to make the system itself largely reliant on extremely low-wage, high-profit regurgitating capital machines (as is the case in the US and the west in general) then competition itself becomes a completely different ball game. This system allows and encourages power structures that collect at the top, a bottleneck that disallows widespread, healthy competition as imagined by capitalist dreamers and idiotic conservatives everywhere. The utopian vision of a production base controlled by the wielders of capital is a fantasy that has enabled and engendered oppression of all kinds from all angles. All of this is pretty patently obvious if you don't spend all of your time on chan boards debating the market with teenagers

>>5877245
This is pretty glib, as is most of the conversation. There is no "market" as an actual entity, no invisible hand, nothing. What you actually have are many individual entities vying for power and influence, the government included. To say consumers are frequently mislead or have their choices limited by design is a severe understatement. The "market" is neither free nor fair, it's impossible to have one that is so.

Marketing research and strategy is huge. No one wants to play fair against each other or with the consumer. Companies take every opportunity to exploit psychological phenomena to manipulate us into making choices that are not in our best interest but line their pockets. You would not believe the amount of money that goes into researching how to exploit human psychology and behavior.

This also applies to politics and religion. No system is pure and fair. All we can do is try to limit exploitation and create as much equal opportunity as possible.

I would say Aristotle, as he had the most to say for the creation of medieval investigative science and scholarship that led to our society today.

Marx because his theories changed the world dramatically.

For the third philosopher I can't say.
A lot of people that are seen as scientists, economists, physicians and other academics today, were actually considered philosophers in their present.
Adam Smith were for example a moral philosopher, not an economist. It is hard to say who impacted the world the most. Confucius impacted east Asia considerably at least.

>>5877287

You're right, we don't. It would be much better if we did.

And I'd like to see some compelling evidence that minimum wage doesn't affect employment. Set the minimum wage at 50 dollars an hour. Does unemployment go up or down?

Illegitimacy rates have been trending sharply upwards since the instituting of a government subsidised welfare program in the United States. Not just among minorities, but among whites as well.

>>5877318
Set the minimum wage at $0 and see if anyone wants to pay their workers enough to survive.
>Illegitimacy rates
What? Again, I don't necessarily support the form of the modern welfare state. I believe there should be some sort of safety net, but I don't necessarily believe in the kind of 'you don't ever have to do anything, we'll pay for everything' model that lolbertarians seem to equate any kind of government action with.

>>5877318
set it to $2, does crime go up or down?
we can both play reductio ad absurdum games
you're really oversimplifying things here

>>5877318
>BUT WHAT IF MINIMUM WAGE WAS 100 BCUKS AN HOUR HUH XDD

do you libertards ever get tired of this nonsensical argument

>Libertarian logic

Lacan>Freud

>>5876545
>Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche as three intellectuals who changed the world
esoteric mystic philosophy has been saying what they've been saying and then some, and much more poetically at that, for centuries before they were even born. it's only to the hardline, skeptic/materialist intellectual that this statement applies.

>>5877351
totally brah

>>5877351
>skeptic/materialist intellectual
>Implying there's another kind of intellectual

>>5877308
People on the whole are not capable of making individual optimal decisions for their own benefit. We lack the expertise. No way are we able to gather sufficient information, compare research, evaluate said research's methodology and validity, etc. on each important decision. We don't even have enough hours in the day to read the TOS agreements for the software we use. We rely on social cues and perceived experts that frequently mislead us, often times intentionally.

There's a staggering amount of research to back this up.

Something recent:
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-herd-mentality-bad-decisions.html

Ask a salesman how often they use fair facts to close and time how long they laugh (assuming they'll give an honest response, of course).

>>5877379
That sounds like an argument against a free market more than anything. In an unregulated financial system, most people will fail to make optimal decisions. With regulations that are meant to optimize things, it seems like it would be more likely.

>>5877387
It absolutely is. We do need consumer advocates and protective agencies. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool.

>>5877393
Oh, I wasn't sure if you were a libertarian or not.
Word.

>>5877326

See how long an employer can stay in business without paying its employees. Especially in a welfare state.

Illegitimacy, as in, the rate of male desertion from families.

>Only 40 percent of black children live in two-parent households. The illegitimacy rate among blacks stands close to 70 percent. The "legacy of slavery" explanation for today's weak black family structure loses all manner of credibility when one examines evidence from the past. Even during slavery, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. One study of nineteenth century slave families (Herbert Gutman, The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925) found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father. In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households were double-headed. In fact, "Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents." Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a black teenage girl raising a child without a man was rare among blacks. Historian Herbert Gutman, also found in analyzing data on black families in Harlem between 1905 and 1925, that only 3 percent of all families "were headed by a woman under thirty." Thomas Sowell found, "Going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, we find that census data of that era showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940."

>>5877431
I would say that illegitimacy rates are higher because of the conditions that men who desert their spouses are forced to live in and not because of the institution of the welfare state, which has failed to eliminate the conditions that perpetuate and create poverty-which is the real cause of illegitimacy.

>>5877379
>People on the whole are not capable of making individual optimal decisions for their own benefit. We lack the expertise. No way are we able to gather sufficient information, compare research, evaluate said research's methodology and validity, etc. on each important decision.

And government bureaucrats sitting in an office in Washington do?

This is cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Imagine if the government was responsible for pricing all the securities that trade on the NYSE. Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that a bunch of paper pushers in Washington with zero background in economics or finance would be able to determine the value of publicly traded companies BETTER than hundreds of thousands of analysts, investors, speculators, fund managers and corporate heads?

Regulation in essence means transferring power from a group with 99% of the knowledge (the public) to an infinitely smaller group with 1% of the knowledge (government agencies).

>>5876545
Point 1 seems impossible to attack or defend, but I'd argue point 2 is true. I think much of Nietzsche and Marx has become "common knowledge," or is accepted in ways that many (>>5876587) tend to overlook.

>>5876679
Ricoeur's essay had at its heart the idea that these three philosophers "uncovered" hidden drives in human motivation: Freud in the psyche, Nietzsche in morality, and Marx in the marketplace.

Freud's libidos, or drives as they are more often translated now, pointed to some inner decision making force, completely independent of rational thinking, that may motivate people's actions. They are logical orderings of illogical mental drives. Basically, he was "unlocking" the idea of the subconscious. Now of course, the notion of the subconscious and "acting without reason" certainly had existed before Freud (see Augustine's Confessions for my favorite example, eating the pears), but his theories argued its primacy in the brain and seem to have completely shifted how we view decision making.

I could expand on the argument for Neet's theories, normally w/r/t Genealogy of Morals, and Marx' ideas of the commodity fetish and alienation of the laborer, but I think you can see the overarching argument.

I'd like to group Darwin (writing around the same time) with those three, even if you don't want to call him a philosopher. Together, I'd argue those 4 influenced what was to come more than any other.

>>5877415
Libertarians sorta remind me of the types of physicists that only think/work abstractly in closed systems and then try to draw broad generalizations about the natural world without any testing.

Sure, it can be a starting point at times, but if you try to apply it directly... you're gonna have a lot of surprises and no idea of how to correct them.

>>5877459

On the contrary! Desertion is one of the chief causes behind poverty.

Shortly after slavery had been abolished, the overwhelming majority of black families were certainly poor by any estimation. But the high rates of fidelity and two-parent households meant that rising generations had a much better chance of attending and finishing school, of being well-fed, and of being able to survive on their own. The poverty and crime epidemics among blacks is not a legacy of slavery; nor can the same epidemic among Hispanics be explained from the slavery of which they were never a part.

>>5877431
Hi. Let's talk about penal system reform and other more relevant socioeconomic factors.

>>5877462
>Freud's libidos, or drives as they are more often translated now, pointed to some inner decision making force, completely independent of rational thinking, that may motivate people's actions. They are logical orderings of illogical mental drives. Basically, he was "unlocking" the idea of the subconscious.

Daily reminder that all this was lifted directly from the works of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. All Freud's significant ideas were plagiarized.

>>5877479

>let's try to reform the penal system instead of the behaviors that lead to people being incarcertated in the first place

Alright, first stop would be to abolish drug prohibition and repeal the Controlled Substances Act.

>>5877475
>On the contrary! Desertion is one of the chief causes behind poverty.
Really? Source?
It seems to me like someone in poverty would be more likely to leave their child and the mother of that child than someone who makes enough money to support them.
It probably goes both ways to a degree, but what you're saying goes against literally everything I've heard or read about the subject.

>>5877460
clearly you didn't read
>>5877308
If you think we have more knowledge and expertise, Upton Sinclair would like to have a word with you.
I never argued for complete regulation for every single product, but it seems like you've already forgotten the causes for the economic crisis. What happens in your backyard doesn't necessarily stay there.

Imagine what Pfizer would be selling us without the FDA, which is half in their pocket as it is.

>>5877501

Just look at the differences in earning power between one- and two-parent households. What creates this viscous cycle of desertion is poverty that is created growing up in a broken household. As I said before, the children of single parent households are less likely to finish school, less likely to secure gainful employment, and less like to marry. All these factors transfer poverty from one generation to the next, but the root cause is the collective loss of responsibility that develops (and has developed time and time again) under a welfare state.

>72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders.

This corresponds almost exactly to the stratification of poverty in the United States.

Someone who makes enough money to support a wife and child is less likely to desert them not on account of his money, but on account of having had the character and sense of responsibility that is associated with affluence. Such a man has probably never received a government handout in his life, and doesn't expect his family to get by on them either.

>>5877379
>We rely on social cues and perceived experts that frequently mislead us, often times intentionally.

And you think government regulations aren't subject to the same?

Even more: they hire these experts, and who can doubt that a compensated expert ceases to be impartial?

Stop being a clown and respond to my points.

>>5877526
>Someone who makes enough money to support a wife and child is less likely to desert them not on account of his money, but on account of having had the character and sense of responsibility that is associated with affluence. Such a man has probably never received a government handout in his life, and doesn't expect his family to get by on them either.
Oh, I didn't realize you were trolling. My mistake.

>>5877526
>Someone who makes enough money to support a wife and child is less likely to desert them not on account of his money, but on account of having had the character and sense of responsibility that is associated with affluence.

>being this retarded

>>5877531
>Experts are usually wrong because they want to restrain my ability to profit
>But people who are out to profit at any cost should be trusted all the time

>>5877533

Sorry that you don't understand the nuances of responsibility.

Families tend to make more money than individuals. There's no reason to assume that desertion corresponds with economic hardship, especially when the majority of desertion occurs even before a child has been born and costs can be assessed.

>>5877460
You're seemingly unaware of 3rd party advocacy groups (there are many).

This is ignorance and arrogance at its finest.

What we need is transparent regulation. Maybe you don't mind contaminated water, but I do.

>>5877531
I don't think you know how these types of decisions are made at all. That damn EPA and their crusade to protect our ground water, leaving our economy in their wake.

This is not how the peer review process works, this is not how scientific research is done. Most of this is done on the university level, and is about as unbiased as it gets.

If you'd rather take your grandmother's word and starve your colds while feeding your fevers, be my guest. I'll stick to my zinc and healthy meals.

>>5877551
People who are born into wealth are more likely to be wealthy than people born into poverty.
If you know you're not going to be able to afford raising a child because your family has been poor for six generations, you're more likely to desert your partner than someone in a similar situation whose family has been wealthy for six generations.
If your father couldn't provide a good childhood for you and his father couldn't provide a good childhood for him, and the constant along all these generations has been a growing degree of poverty, and if you see no reason to believe you're suddenly going to become the first member of your family to suddenly come into a consistent source of wealth, it makes perfect sense to think that you're not going to be able to support a child.

>>5877552

Right, I should trust the same government agencies that mandate fluoridation of the public water supply.

>We all understand why the Environmental Protection Agency was given the power to issue regulations to guard against oil spills, such as that of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska or the more recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But not everyone understands that any power given to any bureaucracy for any purpose can be stretched far beyond that purpose.

>In a classic example of this process, the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file "emergency management" plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train "first responders" and build "containment facilities" if there is a flood of spilled milk.

>Since there is no free lunch, all of this is going to cost the farmers both money and time that could be going into farming— and is likely to end up costing consumers higher prices for farm products.

>It is going to cost the taxpayers money as well, since the EPA is going to have to hire people to inspect farms, inspect farmers' reports and prosecute farmers who don't jump through all the right hoops in the right order. All of this will be "creating jobs," even if the tax money removed from the private sector correspondingly reduces the jobs that can be created there.

This is the problem with government agencies.

>>5877575
Also, the idea that there's a kind of upstanding character that's associated with wealth isn't supported by any kind of scientific evidence. Social Darwinism has always been a load of horse shit.
>>5877581
>Government jobs are bad, private sector jobs are good
Jobs are jobs, idiot.

>>5877551
incarceration and crime directly affect these statistics

>>5877581
take off your tinfoil hat and look at the teeth of those that live in countries that don't

>>5877581
>Right, I should trust the same government agencies that mandate fluoridation of the public water supply.
lel

>>5877575
>If you know you're not going to be able to afford raising a child because your family has been poor for six generations

What's more likely is that the man took one look at how his father behaved (wasn't around) and saw no particular reason he had to stay with someone who was carrying his child.

In the African American community as well, the collective pressure to support one's offspring can only have declined under welfare.

>>5877587

Private sector jobs are paid for by commerce.

Government jobs are paid for by private sector jobs.

If everybody worked for the government, where would the money to pay them come from?

>>5877600
In communism, the government controls the means of production. They'd sell their own products to the people that work for them.

>>5877595
>What's more likely
Why can't they be equally likely? The conditions of poverty that caused his father to leave are the same conditions he's in. It only makes sense that a man would look at his father's example, from a psychological perspective. Maybe he would see a reason if some effort were put into eliminating the conditions that perpetuate his family's cross-generational poverty.
Like I said, I don't approve of the form of the modern welfare state. I would prefer a system that attempted to eliminate poverty by creating jobs.
>>5877600
I'm not advocating universal government employment. Everyone needs a job. Any system that maximizes employment is fine with me. The taxpayer can expect to pay taxes and has no right to complain about it. The purpose of government is government, and government involves caring for the governed. If that care takes the form of employment, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that.
Public works projects are fine ways to create jobs and increase commerce. Look at the American highway system, for example.

>>5877592

lack of basic hygiene and preventive dentistry is what gives them bad teeth. fluoridation would not fix that.

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

Have some data.

>>5877614
Army Corps. of Engineers is a prime example.

>>5877620
>fluoridealert.org
lol

What's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism?

>>5877612

So like a company town where the money you earn is only exchangeable for whatever the company wants to sell you? As in, zero competition and price fixing?

Sounds awful to be honest.

>>5877640

It's data dude. You think WHO's website is an unbiased source? These people are paid to push fluoridation.

>>5877648

The former is more popular on /lit/

>>5877648
completely crazy and slightly crazy

>>5877657
>>5877658
No, I mean, what are the actual differences between the form of society and economic organization they advocate? I don't see any difference at all. Both seem to want no government and an absolutely unregulated form of capitalism.

>>5877614
>The taxpayer can expect to pay taxes and has no right to complain about it.

Taxes at a certain rate, maybe. But when I the taxpayer am directly subsidizing thousands of jobs for people whose business it is to determine how much they should be subsidized, then yes, that is a fucking problem.

>>5877657
*tips tinfoil

>>5877614

Government is the servant, not the master. They should care for us, but ultimately they also answer to us.

>>5877665
Complaining about the government spending taxpayer money is like complaining about having to buy your own groceries with your own money. If the government spends non-taxpayer money, that means it's involved in some kind of commercial endeavor, which you as a libertarian are presumably opposed to. If you don't want the government to spend taxpayer money, then don't pay taxes or become an anarchist. Don't get butthurt when a bureaucrat gets paid.

>>5877662
ancaps: no government
libertarians: small government

>>5877665
There are far bigger expenditures and problems than welfare abuse, and better solutions than simply cutting its funding.

I, for one, have a bigger problem with Medicare part D.

>>5877670

>meme responses

>>5877679
I agree, but government needs money to function, and if that money isn't coming from taxes it's coming from commercial endeavors. I don't have a particular problem with either, as long as the taxation isn't ridiculous and the government doesn't nationalize literally every industry.
Libertarians are opposed to both taxation and government involvement in the economy. I think that this is a bad position.

>>5877683
Under Medicare part D, the government doesn't even have the ability to negotiate prices. The VA drug insurance policy can buy some brand name drugs for under 1/7 of the price part D buys the generic.

There's plenty of gov. fat to trim, I think welfare is pretty far down that list. Defense budget, anyone?

>>5877680

I want government to spend as little of other people's money as possible. I don't see why that's an ignoble goal.

Remember that private sector output is measured in production, whereas government sector output is measured in consumption.

Government is like a necessary parasite. The question is how big should that parasite be allowed to grow.

>>5877683

Welfare should be replaced with a negative income tax, for starters.

>>5877687

Private sector is also not capable of manipulating the money supply or inflating/deflating the currency. Those are very potent powers.

>>5877684
meme responses for a meme ideology

>>5877695
B-but ISIS
>>5877711
Capital is a more necessary and more parasitic parasite than government. The state alone stands between the worker and and his owner.
It's an ignoble goal when it prevents people from being able to afford food or shelter.
The Federal Reserve is literally a private enterprise.

>>5877718
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

>>5877718

Really? Last I checked, Fed chairman were appointed by government.

How exactly is capital parasitic? Are you saying we shouldn't have private accretions of wealth? Shouldn't have private property?

>>5877744
>Last I checked, Fed chairman were appointed by government.
Its stock is owned by bankers, i.e., private individuals.
>How exactly is capital parasitic?
How is it not? Capitalists profit by denying workers some of the value of their labor. I'm sure you don't like the labor theory of value but it's undeniable. We should have private property, but there are limits to the amount of wealth that can ethically and reasonably be allowed to accumulate in the hands of a massive minority of the population.

>>5877772

Yeah but the bankers don't vote on their chairman. The Senate does.

>Capitalists profit by denying workers some of the value of their labor.

Really? So is there some abstract value of labor that exists independent of market conditions? Who is in a position to determine this value? Certainly not the capitalists, because they will always pay the minimum. Certainly not the worker or his union, because it will always demands the maximum.

The market must do so. If two capitalists are fighting over the same tiny supply of skilled workers, for instance, and one pays below par market value for that labor while the other pays above, who do you think these workers will go work for?

If you don't have mass accretions wealth, where does the money to pay the bulk of workers come from? The fucking ether?

>>5877799
The stock is owned by private banks. The fact that the chairman is appointed by the government doesn't invalidate the fact that the organization as a whole is owned by private individuals serving their own interests.
>So is there some abstract value of labor that exists independent of market conditions?
Yes. The value of the individual worker's labor and the time that labor takes is the only absolute value any commodity has. If you aren't familiar with Marx, that's not my fault.
'Value' and 'price' are not synonymous.

>>5877744
The Federal Reserve and its 12 districts are only a tiny bit accountable to the Government Accountability Office (they don't look into much). Most of its accountability goes to a 3rd party independent auditor and no one else. While the government may affect who works where a tiny bit, its operations are independent from the government.

Each of the 12 banks operate like their own corporations and are completely private, as are the profits.

>>5877799
If you don't think the lobbyists tell the Senate how to vote, you're mistaken.

Technically I'd say it's a quasi-government entity, but that's splitting hairs. They usually earn more than the top 5 banks combined, and in practical terms, have no more government oversight than any other bank.

>>5877236
>Nietzsche
>idealism
Please. Kant being part of it is pushing it, Idealism is Fiche, Schelling and Hegel.

>>5877827

And who gives lobbyist the power to influence policy in the first place?

Let's say the FDA was abolished tomorrow. Would it do the pharmaceutical companies any good to spend million of dollars lobbying for regulation in Washington?

>>5877836

Nietzsche is the culimation of Idealism. Look into his unpublished notebooks. He believed in the metaphysical world as conceived by Kant/Schopenhauer, but denied its existence had any moral significance for this world. There are some excellent passages in his late notebooks about the neurophysiology of cause and effect that align perfectly with Kantian idealism and Schopenhauer's conception of vorstellung, or Re-presentation.

Fichte, Schelling and Hegel were all departures from Kant. Fichte for instance propounded absolute idealism, which Kant explicitly repudiated.

>>5877858
>>5877858
>Lobbying is a problem
>If we eliminate government, there won't be lobbyists
>Therefore we should abolish government
Is this actually your logic?

>>5877880
>Lobbying is a problem
>If we eliminate government intrusion into commerce, there won't be lobbyists.
>Therefore we ought to get rid of most government regulation of free enterprise

reading comprehension helps

>>5877858
Hegel came up with absolute idealism after Kant died. How could Kant repudiate it?
Calling Nietzsche an 'idealist' seems to be stretching the definition of idealism.

>>5877893
I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion. This is literally the thing we've been arguing about all thread, so I don't know what to say that I haven't already said.

>>5877894

Fichte came up with it, not Hegel, and it was during Kant's lifetime. Absolute Idealism states in essence that the subject spins the whole world of appearances out of his own intellect willy-nilly, and that this mental picture does not have an objective correlate. Basically the successors of Kant all found different ways to grapple with the problem of thing in itself, which Kant resolved as an inscrutable x.

Schopenhauer made it into an entity with negative properties which he obtained through inversion those belonging to representation.

Whence:

Phenomena are: Plural, temporal, causally governed

The noumenon is: Singular, eternal, and acausal

The differences between earlier and later version of Critique of Pure Reason show Kant taking issues with parts of his philosophy which led to to thinkers like Fichte propounding absolute Idealism.

>>5877912

You're taking my argument to spurious conclusions. I am not an anarchist, nor have I ever claimed as much. There's a huge difference between wanting to shrink government and wanting to abolish government. I am for the former.

>>5877945
But you imply that the problem with lobbying is that there are people who can be lobbied, and suggested that the solution is to remove the possibility of lobbying. You mentioned the FDA, and it's true that if any government agency were removed there would no longer be a group lobbying that agency, but in order to eliminate the possibility of lobbying altogether you'd have to eliminate the people who can be lobbied. What do you want to do if not remove the lobbied from a position of possibly being lobbied?

>>5877945

Listen to Schopenhauer:

>Therefore the fact that, on the occasion of certain sensations occurring in my organs of sense, there arises in my head a PERCEPTION of things extended in space, permanent in time, and casually operative, by no means justifies me assuming that such things also exist in themselves, in other words, that they exist with such properties absolutely belonging to them, independent of my heads and outside it. This is the correct conclusion of the Kantian philosophy.

Now from wikipedia:

>Fichte did not endorse Kant's argument for the existence of noumena, of "things in themselves", the supra-sensible reality beyond the categories of human reason. Fichte saw the rigorous and systematic separation of "things in themselves" (noumena) and things "as they appear to us" (phenomena) as an invitation to skepticism. Rather than invite such skepticism, Fichte made the radical suggestion that we should throw out the notion of a noumenal world and instead accept the fact that consciousness does not have a grounding in a so-called "real world". In fact, Fichte achieved fame for originating the argument that consciousness is not grounded in anything outside of itself. The phenomenal world as such, arises from self-consciousness; the activity of the ego; and moral awareness.

Again Schopenhauer:

>Fichte who, because the thing-in-itself had just been discredited, at once prepared a system without any thing-in-itself. Consequently, he rejected the assumption of anything that was not through and through merely our representation, and therefore let the knowing subject be all in all or at any rate produce everything from its own resources. For this purpose, he at once did away with the essential and most meritorious part of the Kantian doctrine, the distinction between a priori and a posteriori and thus that between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself. For he declared everything to be a priori, naturally without any evidence for such a monstrous assertion.

>>5877945

No, you're confusing absolute idealism with the idealism of Berkeley. Absolute idealism is contrasted to subjective idealism; Hegel is closer to Plato in that the ideal objects are still outside of the human mind.

>>5877983

I'm saying take the source of agency away from the lobbyists. Government has certain control over private enterprises; these enterprises therefore use government to obtain things they cannot obtain any other way, like protection against competition. If the government lacks power to regulate commerce, then it limits the extent to which certain small interests can moderate commerce through government. That's all I'm saying. Lobbying only works if the lobbied are in a position to meddle.

>>5878012

This is a confusion in terms. I call absolute idealism that in which no external, material world obtains. In academic parlance there are finer distinctions, but I understand your confusion in my misuse of the term. Idealism involves a lot of hair-splitting.

>>5877256
Eh, I have my fears based on what happened in catalonia that it might evolve back into a state. Catalonia at least, they never got rid of it. Though it didn't start gaining power till the very end.

Need more evidence until I can come to something conclusive. I will say that the anarcho-communism of aragon seemed to have more potential for a self-substaining anarchist society (if left to its own devices).

Still, anarcho-syndacalism is still preferable, even if it did evolve back into a state. It would end up looking like a fedral direct democracy.

>>5878013
My position is that the enterprises need to be regulated. The problem is the lobbyists. All things being equal, lobbyists should be eliminated, and Congress should act directly on the will of the people, not on the will of private interests represented by groups of lobbyists. Citizens United was the worst thing that happened to America since 9/11.
>>5878052
But absolute idealism is literally the name of Hegel's philosophical system. Idealism involves a lot of hair-splitting, but there's a particular thing that absolute idealism is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism

>>5878074
When I think of anarcho-syndicalism, I think of a state that is directly accountable to the people, rather than a state that doesn't exist. Anarchism isn't necessarily a lack of a state, from what I've heard (Chomsky).

>>5877197
you can't actually believe this horseshit can you?

You want Nuclear warlordism? Because thats what you would get.

>>5877209
read a fucking book fag, people were compelled to work in your libertarian fantasy. Its called the Gilded age and it sucked.

>discussions about libertarianism
everyone from the anclaps to the hardcore marxists is subhuman

>>5877245
What fucking planet do you live in?

There is an asymmetry of information, Coca-Cola can hire militias in South America and everyone in America will still drink their fizzy drink not giving one single fuck.

>>5877282

Denmark? Canada? Sweden? Urban America?

Those are all welfare states you fucking idiot.

>>5878354
Absolute Monarchy in the form of hyper intelligent AI is the best form of government.

>>5878507

>>5878539
Goddammit that's perfect

OP or some anon post the relevant videos

Whats Marx without Smith?

>>5878507
I, too, would like to live in the Culture.

>>5878578
OP here, the thread already crashed with no survivors, I don't have to look anything up at this point lol

>>5877120
> he's a hack because I don't like him!

>>5878741

>he's not a hack because I like him!

>>5878830
>>5878741
/lit/

>>5876604
My take on it would be that we are incline to give a lot of importance to the thing we find important. A less cynical answer would be that professors probably know better than a random layman like me about these philosphers, and therefore have the ability to figure out the changes they have brought to the world. Or maybe it's just a way to spring interest in people. But I'm still incline to think that it is short-sightedness in most cases. When I wasn't initiated to litterature, every little technological progress seemed like such a gigantic step, and now that I can read through the writings of people that lived long before the idea of technical progress was even imagined, I see how few things have really changed. But it might just be because I lost my grip with contemporary culture.

I think the significance of things is such an abstract and unclear concept when it is used pretty much out of nowhere, that it is easy to feel it up with the passions and the feelings that we project into it, to feel it up with ourselve basically.

>>5878987

more like /lit/erally retarded

>>5877236
Real talk tho
Without the whole Nazi thang, would Heidegger have been bigger?
He along with his family have been pretty good at airbrushing and de-browning him up until recently

I dunno I think he's pretty boss

>>5880230
Definitely. The Nazi thing gets brought up by people who don't want to into his ideas and no one else.

>>5877196
Why do you always post this Nietzsche quote with a picture of Rand?

>>5880946
Rand is the capitalist Nietzsche.

>>5876545
no,
Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein is the correct answer

>>5877209
>No one is compelled to work for an abusive employers.
Holy shit all you fucking uneducated fucks go fuck yourselves
actually made me mad. I dont care if its bait its just this autistic.

>>5877248
Its disgusting. Its the dark side of /lit/. The posters that dont read, read shit, or barely read that post this shit, since any half-educated person would not be subscribing to such nonsensicle ideologies.

>>5881112
>le STEM master-race

>>5877799
nice dubs, libfag

>>5880230
There's way less famous philosophers that were friends of Hiedegger and were openly against the nazis. Heidi is pretty much mandatory in a philosophy degree. He does probably get the most 2ndary literature in English recently.

Its not about the individuals

>>5881212
> its just this autistic
welcome to libertarianism!