Who is the best political philosopher and why is it John Rawls?

[Anonymous No.10773432]

Egalitarianism is the only empirical philosophy, everything else is neoliberal trash that causes the financial crisis and the rich elite

[Anonymous No.10773453]

>>10773432
There is nothing wrong with some people being rich and some not.

[Anonymous No.10774395]

>>10773453
simplistic trash

[Anonymous No.10774996]

OP is wrong, jeremy corbyn is superior

[Anonymous No.10775008]

>>10773432
What is empirical about egalitarianism?

[Anonymous No.10775073]

>>10775008
its evidence based, its just that the globalist NWO 1% rich elites economists hate the poor
the rich banksters tricked Bernie out of winning
also inequality feels bad, so its false checkmate

[Anonymous No.10775089]

>>10775073
So... what is empirical about egalitarianism?

[Anonymous No.10775263]

>>10775073
So you want to throw the baby out with the bath water? You can get rid of the rich elites without egalitarianism. The global elite exploiting the poor isn't a good argument for egalitarianism; it simply shows that egalitarianism is a solution, albeit not necessarily a good one.

Now give us a good reason why egalitarianism is the only empirical philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10775279]

Are the exploited and the exploiters of equal worth and respect?

[Anonymous No.10775317]

>>10773432
Rawls argued from conclusions to premises. Not even Nozick was that incompetent.

[Anonymous No.10775347]

>>10775317
can you elaborate? afaik, hes like "veil of ignorance", le rational ppl would result in social democracy etc etc.
Also I don't understand him precisely, like what is his end goal? social democracy of course, but to what extent? I mean, if we look at his premises about inequality, it could slippery-slope into Corbynist socialism, if utilitarianism is to be disgarded?

[Anonymous No.10775391]

>>10775347
I saved this from another thread, since someone stated it better than I ever could:
>>I bet you retards don't even know picrelated lmao brainlets
>Did you write that to bait me? Because I'm taking any chance I get to voice my disapproval of Rawls. His whole philosophy was stillborn, it was a tangled mess of one "what if" following another but with no first principles to give his ruminations any relevancy. His philosophy was completely unoriginal, an apologetic for the New Deal written long after the New Deal was already enacted.
>I've read the entirety of A Theory of Justice. It pretty much confirmed what I already suspected after hearing about it in lectures: That Rawls' argument does not really prove anything. A bunch of ghosts with no pasts and no personality sits down and decides how to build a society that is to each ones egoistic interests; the result is somehow the just society. Why? The whole "thought experiment" is set up to prove what Rawls wanted to prove. And it's not even a didactic tool, the "Veil of Ignorance" is Rawls premise. He does not use it to demonstrate something to us that he proves in another way, it is his proof, but neither is it linked to the conclusions (a classical non sequitur), nor did Rawls justify his premises.
>Two last things on this. First, remember what Rawls said about intergenerational justice? Between his original treatise and the revised edition, he discovered that his thought experiment does not account for it. Therefore, he added in the revised edition that those in the original position do not know which generation they will be born into. In his words:
>>The one case where this conclusion fails is that of saving. Since the persons in the original position know that
>>they are contemporaries (taking the present time of entry interpretation), they can favor their generation by refusing to make any sacrifices at all for their successors; they simply acknowledge the principle that no one has a duty to save for posterity. Previous generations have saved or they have not; there is nothing the parties can now do to affect that. So in this instance the veil of ignorance fails to secure the desired result. Therefore, to handle the question of justice between generations, I modify the motivation assumption and add a further constraint (§22). With these adjustments, no generation is able to formulate principles especially designed to advance its own cause and some significant limits on savings principles can be derived (§44).
>>The one case where this conclusion fails
>>So in this instance the veil of ignorance fails to secure the desired result. Therefore, to handle the question of justice between generations, I modify the motivation assumption and add a further constraint (§22).

[Anonymous No.10775394]

>>10775391
Cont'd:
>This shows very clearly that Rawls argued from his conclusions to his premises, which, you may notice, is exactly how you don't do it. The conclusions follow from the premises, not the other way around, and while unacceptable conclusions can and should tick us off that something was wrong with our thinking, Rawls takes this to whole new and ridiculous levels here. He does not think "oh, something here must be amiss, I better check over my premises", he thinks: "My premises don't lead me where I want them to lead me, I'll just change them". It's as if a natural scientist came up with a fully developed theory and then wrote down his observations.
>Two, Rawls on time-preference: He said it is irrational. He mistook praxeology for psychology, which is a mistake a beginner would make. The question of whether it is irrational to have a time-preference is as nonsensical as the question of whether we should respect the law of marginal utility. So not only did Rawls use a methodology that would make any legitimate philosopher cry out to the heavens, he also just plain didn't know what he was talking about.
>I don't even care if it's bait. Any chance to bash Rawls is a chance to be taken, until he becomes as irrelevant as such rising stars as Robert Filmer and Celsus. The chances for that are good, because no one seems to read Rawls for his merits as a philosopher, but only for his merit of being a philosopher who shares his opinion and is beloved by Harvard.