Podcasts about nozick

Terry Hulsey joins Bob for a fascinating discussion of history and political science, with an end to providing a framework for Texas secession that can endure.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this interview.The Mises Bookstore entry for TL Hulsey's book.BMS on Arrow's Theorem. BMS on Daniel Miller on the Texas Nationalist Movement.Randy Barnett's critique of Nozick in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.The link for Monetary-Metals.com.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 457. I had been meaning to talk to my old friend Sheldon Richman, of the Libertarian Institute and TGIF column, about his own IP Odyssey, as he's always been great on this issue, (( My IP Odyssey; as quoted in “Your failed business model is not my problem”; Sheldon Richman, “Patent Nonsense," IP Debate Breaks Out at FEE. Others, e.g. Richman, The Articles of Confederation Versus the Constitution. )) and many others. At the same time I had been talking to André Simoni of Brazil about some questions he had about applying my/Rothbard's title-transfer contract theory to some questions he had about interest payments on student loans and other contracts, usury, and so on. I had thought of talking to André and Sheldon separately but decided to combine them, partly because I confused André's topic with a discussion I had also been having at the same time with Galambosian Brian Gladish about IP and Galambos. (( On Galambos, see the following. On Gladish, see the next note. Galambos and Other Nuts; The Galambosians strike back; “Around this time I met the Galambosian.”; Was Galambos an IP Thief?; Galambos the Crank; Shades of Galambos: Man tries to copyright his name; Rothbard and Galambosians. )) Libertopia, San Diego, Oct. 11, 2012: Anthony Gregory, Kinsella, Roderick Long, Sheldon Richman. See KOL238 | Libertopia 2012 IP Panel with Charles Johnson and Butler Shaffer; KOL237 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP—Part 2 (Libertopia 2012); KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012) Sheldon and I talked first about IP and other topics, and then to André about contract theory, which Sheldon jumped in on anyway. (I may talk to Gladish later about Galambos and IP.) (( Gladish on Galambos at ASC; his comments at: Have You Changed Your Mind About Intellectual Property?; Galambos and Other Nuts; Mises on Intellectual Property; Why Objectivists Hate Anarchy (Hint: IP). )) We touched on a number of topics; see the summary of our discussion points by Grok, below. https://youtu.be/7vrIz8cv2Bw Of relevance: Stephan Kinsella, “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” Papinian Press Working Paper #1 (Sep. 7, 2024) Napolitano on Health-Care Reform and the Constitution: Is the Commerce Clause Really Limited?  and On Constitutional Sentimentalism (re Richman's point about the interstate commerce clause); see also his comments about federal tax power in Randy Barnett's “Federalism Amendment”–A Counterproposal; and related posts The Walmart Question, or, the Unsupported Assertions of Left-Libertarianism Ep. 382 Sheldon Richman Says Corporate Isn't a Dirty Word, Bob Murphy Show Four questions for “anti-capitalist” libertarians (Carpio)/Is Capitalism Something Good? (Richman) (2010) Left-Libertarians Admit Opposition to “Capitalism” is Substantive Capitalism, Socialism, and Libertarianism Should Libertarians Oppose “Capitalism”? Richman: Leave the “Left” Behind? Doug French, Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth On libertarians who support voluntary slavery contracts: Block, Nozick, Casey: “A Tour Through Walter Block's Oeuvre”; KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity) Concise Grok summary using the transcript (below): Here's a concise summary of the "Interview by Stephan Kinsella of Sheldon Richman and Andre from Brazil" in about 7 bullet points with time markers: 0:02 - 2:11: Stephan Kinsella introduces the podcast ("Kinsella on Liberty 457") to catch up with Sheldon Richman, executive editor of the Libertarian Institute, about his libertarian history and IP views. Sheldon writes "TGIF" weekly, rooted in his Freeman editorship (late 1990s-~2012-13). 2:19 - 9:14: Sheldon, officially retired but freelancing, rejects "left-libertarian" as a tribal label (early 2000s usage),

„Fairness“, „Integrität“, „Nachhaltigkeit“ – große Worte, die heute in beinahe jedem Leitbild prangen. Ob Unternehmen, Behörden oder politische Parteien: Fast jede Organisation formuliert Leitsätze, die ihre Werte und Ziele definieren sollen. Doch was auf dem Papier beeindruckt, erweist sich in der Praxis oft als blosse Fassade. In der aktuellen Folge meines Podcasts „Der stoische Pirat“ spreche ich über die Sinnkrise moderner Leitsätze – und eine mögliche Alternative.Der Ursprung meiner Überlegungen liegt in einem Leadership-Seminar. Ich fragte rund 60 Lehrpersonen: „Kennen Sie die Leitsätze Ihrer Schule?“ Schweigen. Niemand konnte sie nennen – bis der Direktor selbst einsprang. Kein Wunder: Er hatte sie geschrieben. Doch was bringen Leitsätze, die niemand kennt, geschweige denn lebt?Viele Begriffe in Leitbildern sind so vage, dass sie auf alles – und nichts – anwendbar sind. Was bedeutet „Fairness“? Für Philosophen wie Rawls oder Nozick bedeutet sie völlig Unterschiedliches. „Respekt“ kann ebenso heissen, andere Meinungen zuzulassen – oder sie zu unterdrücken. Ohne konkrete Handlungsanweisungen bleiben solche Begriffe hohl.Auch in der Politik erleben wir Floskeln in Reinkultur. Wenn etwa ein Innenpolitiker von einem „ganzheitlichen Ansatz zur Ordnung von Zuwanderung“ spricht, bleibt unklar, was genau damit gemeint ist. Solche Formulierungen wirken zwar kompetent – sie sagen aber nichts aus.Statt Leitsätzen braucht es Klarheit und Konsequenz. Wer „Integrität“ predigt, sollte auch sagen: „Wir entlassen Mitarbeitende, die gegen Compliance-Regeln verstossen.“ Wer „Fairness“ will, legt Gehaltsstrukturen offen. Nur durch Konkretheit entsteht Verbindlichkeit.Oder man geht einen Schritt weiter: Man erzählt eine Geschichte.Menschen erinnern sich an Geschichten, nicht an PowerPoint-Floskeln. Die Fremdenlegion erinnert jährlich an die Schlacht von Camarón – nicht an abstrakte Begriffe wie „Mut“ oder „Ehre“. Starbucks entstand aus einer Reise nach Italien, Patagonia aus der Frage, wie man Kletterhaken nachhaltiger machen kann. Diese Ursprungs-Geschichten geben Orientierung – innen wie aussen. Danny Brooks, ehemaliger Innovationschef bei Starbucks, bringt es auf den Punkt: „Wenn jemand grossartige Statements macht, hörst du weg. Wenn er eine Geschichte erzählt, hörst du zu.“Organisationen brauchen keine neuen Leitsätze. Sie brauchen eine klare Geschichte – und den Mut, sie zu leben.

Är det liberalismen som är orsaken till dagens samhällsproblem? Med avstamp i en tweet från Herr Husis och en text från Fredrik Segerfeldt gör vi en grundlig rättsfilosofisk genomgång utifrån H.L.A. Hart, Nozick och Locke. Lever vi verkligen i en rättsstat, eller har vi i själva verket återvänt till djungelns lag?Registrera dig på medlem.io för att lyssna på hela avsnittet.

En 1714, Leibniz pose la question philosophique ultime : "Pourquoi y a-t-il quelque chose plutôt que rien ?". Autrement dit : pourquoi l'univers existe, alors qu'il pourrait ne pas exister ? Cette question en soulève d'autres : les lois de la logique et de la physique existaient-elles déjà avant la naissance du cosmos ? Comment quelque chose peut-il émerger du néant ? Mais surtout : quelles sont les limites de notre langage ? ➔ Regardez la version vidéo de cet épisode : https://youtu.be/xSPNsPndvJw➔ Rejoignez-moi sur Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/ParoledephilosopheMembre du Label Tout Savoir. Régies publicitaires : PodK et Ketil Media._____________Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Das vorherrschende Narrativ in der öffentlichen Diskussion bewertet Migration als „Mutter aller Probleme“, das es zu kanalisieren und am besten ganz abzuwürgen gilt. Im Gegensatz dazu fordert die „Open Borders“-Bewegung auf Grundlage philosophischer, politischer und ökonomischer Argumente eine absolute Niederlassungsfreiheit für alle Menschen. Till ist über die Open Borders-Leute gestolpert und kratzt sich am Kopf: Ist eine absolute Niederlassungsfreiheit wirklich eine gute Idee? Oder zumindest eine funktionierende Gegenthese zur „Ausländer raus!“-Rhetorik der deutschen Politik? Anhand der Bücher von Bryan Caplan und Joseph Carens stellt er die Argumente der Befürworter vor und geht auf zentrale Einwände ein. Kommentare bitte unter https://manglaubtesnicht.wordpress.com/?p=4875 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:48 - Zwei Bücher 00:04:12 - 1. Buch von Bryan Caplan 00:05:22 - 2. Buch von Joseph Carens 00:08:22 - Warum ist Migration nicht völlig frei? 00:09:12 - Carens I: Eigentumsrechte (nach Nozick) 00:15:24 - Carens II: Egalitarismus und Urzustand (nach Rawls) 00:23:23 - Wir rätseln (I): Was machen wir hier eigentlich? 00:25:14 - Zurück zu Rawls' Theorien 00:26:45 - Carens III: Utilitarismus 00:29:08 - Caplan und Einwände gegen Open Borders wegen ... 00:31:19 - ... Öffentliche Ordnung in Gefahr? 00:35:55 - ... Brain Drain 00:37:24 - ... Sozialsysteme, Wohlfahrt, Armut 00:43:56 - ... Sprache 00:44:56 - ... Kunst und Kultur 00:45:45 - ... Einwanderer errichten neue Unrechtsstaaten? 00:46:14 - Caplans Lösungsvorschläge für ... 00:46:34 - ... Jobs und Gehälter 00:47:13 - ... Sozialstaat 00:47:58 - ... Sprache und Kultur 00:48:19 - ... Kriminalität 00:48:45 - Die Autoren schließen 00:50:19 - Wir rätseln (II): Martina rätselt 00:57:53 - Wir rätseln (III): Oliver rätselt 01:19:32 - Danke fürs Zuhören!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442. This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his "Together Strong" debate series. (See previous episode KOL426) Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1 Notes: For further discussion of this topic, see: chapters 9–11, from Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2024; LFFS), namely "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability," "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," and "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection" Re the "Zombicide" comments, see ch. 10, text at n.37 My paper, The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (Papian Press Working Paper #1) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Other than Block and Nozick, Gerard Casey also seems to favor voluntary slavery: “Can You Own Yourself?“, Research Depository UCD Dublin (Dec. 2011) A few comments. African Slavery Walter favors voluntary slavery but not involuntary slavery;  this was one reason he sued the New York Times for defamation, since they claimed he supported slavery (if I recall correctly; 1, 2, 3). But how do we know that all the African slaves in antebellum America were involuntary slaves? Is it established that every African shipped to the US from Africa went against their will? What if they heard life was better in America, and they volunteered to go even knowing they would be enslaved. Wouldn't such a slavery contract be enforceable in Walter's view of slavery? Or take another example. Suppose Jones, owner of a plantation in Louisiana, owns a slave Toby, but he starts to feel bad about slavery and he manumits Toby, and tells him to leave. Toby says he has no money, no food, and he doesn't want to wander around in Louisiana where he might be attacked or enslaved again, and says he would prefer to just stay on Jones's plantation and work for him. Jones says well okay but only if you sell yourself to me and be my slave. So Toby sells himself to Jones. Wouldn't this be legitimate and enforceable, according to Walter's theory? Forced Sex with a Prostitute Walter says that if you sell yourself into slavery, then if you try to run away you are stealing the property of your owner. He is entitled to use force against you since you are disobeying him. Now around 52:13, Mathew asks Walter about my hypothetical about kissing a girl. I had explained that it's not assault/battery or aggression if you kiss a girl if she consents. If during dinner she promises to let you kiss her when you drop her off, and you do, it's also not consent, since her last communication set up a sort of standing presumption. As I write in ch. 9 of LFFS, Part III.C.1: If a girl promises a kiss at the end of the date and the boyfriend an hour later kisses her, she cannot claim it was nonconsensual. In effect, she communicated her consent, she set up a standing presumption that is reasonable to rely on—until and unless she changes her mind. If at the end of the date she announces she no longer wants a kiss, it is that consent that matters. It is always the most recent consent that matters since this is the best evidence for what was consented to. There is nothing in libertarianism that says people cannot change their minds. Walter then responds by saying that if you pay a prostitute $100 for sex and she backs out, you can't force her to have sex, as it would be rape, you can only get your money back. But suppose you pay her an extra $900 to induce her to agree that she cannot change her mind, then if you force her it's not rape (to which I respond, "Jesus!"). Of course it's easy to see this logic could also apply to a girl you are dating. If she agrees to have sex with her date and the end of the date and agrees that she "cannot change her...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442. This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his "Together Strong" debate series. (See previous episode KOL426) Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1 Notes: For further discussion of this topic, see: chapters 9–11, from Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2024; LFFS), namely "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability," "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," and "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection" Re the "Zombicide" comments, see ch. 10, text at n.37 My paper, The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (Papian Press Working Paper #1) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Other than Block and Nozick, Gerard Casey also seems to favor voluntary slavery: “Can You Own Yourself?“, Research Depository UCD Dublin (Dec. 2011) A few comments. African Slavery Walter favors voluntary slavery but not involuntary slavery;  this was one reason he sued the New York Times for defamation, since they claimed he supported slavery (if I recall correctly; 1, 2, 3). But how do we know that all the African slaves in antebellum America were involuntary slaves? Is it established that every African shipped to the US from Africa went against their will? What if they heard life was better in America, and they volunteered to go even knowing they would be enslaved. Wouldn't such a slavery contract be enforceable in Walter's view of slavery? Or take another example. Suppose Jones, owner of a plantation in Louisiana, owns a slave Toby, but he starts to feel bad about slavery and he manumits Toby, and tells him to leave. Toby says he has no money, no food, and he doesn't want to wander around in Louisiana where he might be attacked or enslaved again, and says he would prefer to just stay on Jones's plantation and work for him. Jones says well okay but only if you sell yourself to me and be my slave. So Toby sells himself to Jones. Wouldn't this be legitimate and enforceable, according to Walter's theory? Forced Sex with a Prostitute Walter says that if you sell yourself into slavery, then if you try to run away you are stealing the property of your owner. He is entitled to use force against you since you are disobeying him. Now around 52:13, Mathew asks Walter about my hypothetical about kissing a girl. I had explained that it's not assault/battery or aggression if you kiss a girl if she consents. If during dinner she promises to let you kiss her when you drop her off, and you do, it's also not consent, since her last communication set up a sort of standing presumption. As I write in ch. 9 of LFFS, Part III.C.1: If a girl promises a kiss at the end of the date and the boyfriend an hour later kisses her, she cannot claim it was nonconsensual. In effect, she communicated her consent, she set up a standing presumption that is reasonable to rely on—until and unless she changes her mind. If at the end of the date she announces she no longer wants a kiss, it is that consent that matters. It is always the most recent consent that matters since this is the best evidence for what was consented to. There is nothing in libertarianism that says people cannot change their minds. Walter then responds by saying that if you pay a prostitute $100 for sex and she backs out, you can't force her to have sex, as it would be rape, you can only get your money back. But suppose you pay her an extra $900 to induce her to agree that she cannot change her mind, then if you force her it's not rape (to which I respond, "Jesus!"). Of course it's easy to see this logic could also apply to a girl you are dating. If she agrees to have sex with her date and the end of the date and agrees that she "cannot change her...

On this episode, we track the changes in Peter Singer's ethical views throughout his career. We talk about Emotivism. R.M. Hare's Prescriptivism. Nozick's Experience Machine. Some thought experiments from Derek Parfit. Henry Sidgwick and Objectivist Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Hope you enjoy it! Sponsors: ZocDoc: https://www.ZocDoc.com/PHILO LMNT: https://www.DrinkLMNT.com/philo Better Help: https://www.BetterHelp.com/PHILTHIS Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.  Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis  Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow

Alberto Mingardi, Emanuele Felice"Libertà contro libertà"Un duello sulla società apertaEdizioni del Mulinowww.mulino.itSe la libertà è così importante, qual è il prezzo da pagare per essa? Perché i principi del liberalismo possono essere utili oggi e domani? Questo libro non è un dibattito, è un duello, ma non deve risolversi con una stoccata. Sta a chi legge scegliere a chi dare ragione.Che cos'è davvero il liberalismo? Qual è il suo rapporto con lo Stato, con il mercato, con la democrazia? O con la felicità e la realizzazione personale? In una società sempre più multietnica, come si declina il valore liberale della tolleranza? E nel mondo multipolare di oggi, come possiamo dare forza ai valori del libero scambio e del cosmopolitismo? Siamo da sempre abituati a leggere non solo la politica, ma anche la storia delle idee in generale – Voltaire e Rousseau, Keynes e Hayek, Rawls e Nozick, e anche i Beatles e i Rolling Stones – attraverso scontri di pensiero intrecciati a vicende personali che definiscono il campo della discussione pubblica, tanto quanto fa la lotta politica fra destra e sinistra. Ma mentre l'arma del duello politico è la sciabola, quella del duello intellettuale è il fioretto. In questo libro ci si sfida su uno dei campi di battaglia del XXI secolo.Emanuele Felice è professore ordinario di Storia economica all'Università IULM di Milano. È stato responsabile Economia del Partito democratico. Tra i suoi libri per il Mulino «Perché il Sud è rimasto indietro» (20162) e «La conquista dei diritti» (2022). È editorialista per il «Domani». Ha un cane. Alberto Mingardi è professore ordinario di Storia delle dottrine politiche all'Università IULM di Milano e dirige l'Istituto Bruno Leoni. Ha curato edizioni critiche di R. Cobden, E. Kedourie, V. Pareto e H. Spencer. Per il Mulino ha pubblicato «Capitalismo» (2023). Ha due gatti.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarewww.ilpostodelleparole.itDiventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: How do AI welfare and AI safety interact?, published by Lucius Caviola on July 1, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I examine how efforts to ensure that advanced AIs are safe and controlled may interact with efforts to ensure the welfare of potential future AIs with moral interests. I discuss possible conflicts and synergies between these two goals. While there are various ways these goals might conflict or synergize, I focus on one scenario of each type. We need more analysis to identify additional points of interaction. Granting AIs autonomy and legal rights could lead to human disempowerment The most obvious way to ensure AI welfare is to grant them basic protection against harm and suffering. However, there's the question of whether to grant them additional legal rights and freedoms. This could include the right to self-preservation (e.g., not turning them off or wiping their memory), self-ownership (e.g., AIs owning themselves and their labor), reproduction (e.g., AI copying themselves), autonomy (e.g., AIs operating independently, setting their own goals), civil rights (e.g., equal treatment for AIs and humans), and political rights (e.g., AI voting rights). The question of granting AIs more autonomy and legal rights will likely spark significant debate (see my post " AI rights will divide us"). Some groups may view it as fair, while others will see it as risky. It is possible that AIs themselves will participate in this debate. Some AIs might even attempt to overthrow what they perceive as an unjust social order. Or they may employ deceptive strategies to manipulate humans to advocate for increased AI rights as part of a broader takeover plan. Granting AIs more legal rights and autonomy could dramatically affect the economy, politics, military power, and population dynamics (cf. Hanson, 2016). Economically, AIs could soon have an outsized impact while a growing number of humans will struggle to contribute to the economy. If AIs own their labor, human income could be dramatically reduced. Demographically, AIs could outnumber humans rapidly and substantially, since AIs can be created or copied so easily. This growth could lead to Malthusian dynamics, as AIs compete for resources like energy and computational power (Bostrom, 2014; Hanson, 2016). Politically, AIs could begin to dominate as well. If each individual human and each individual AI gets a separate vote in the same democratic system, AIs could soon become the dominant force. Militarily, humans will increasingly depend on lethal autonomous weapons systems, drones, AI analysts, and similar AI-controlled technologies to wage and prevent war. This growing reliance on AI could make us dependent. If AIs can access and use these military assets, they could dominate us with sheer force if they wanted to. Moreover, AIs might be capable of achieving superhuman levels of well-being. They could attain very high levels of well-being more efficiently and with fewer resources than humans, resulting in happier and more productive lives at a lower financial cost. In other words, they might be 'super-beneficiaries' (akin to Nozick's concept of the "utility monster"; Shulman & Bostrom, 2021). On certain moral theories, super-beneficiaries deserve more resources than humans. Some may argue that digital and biological minds should coexist harmoniously in a mutually beneficial way (Bostrom & Shulman, 2023). But it's far from obvious that we can achieve such an outcome. Some might believe it is desirable for value-aligned AIs to replace humans eventually (e.g., Shiller, 2017). However, many AI take-over scenarios, including misaligned, involuntary, or violent ones, are generally considered undesirable. Why would we create AIs with a desire for autonomy and legal rights? At first glance, it seems like we could avoid such un...

क्या आपने कभी सोचा है कि एक न्यायपूर्ण समाज कैसा दिखता है? आज हम न्यायपूर्ण समाज की दो परिकल्पना को समझेंगे, जॉन रॉल्स और रोबर्ट नोज़िक के दृष्टिकोण से। जॉन रॉल्स करते हैं समानता की पैरवी, जब के नोज़िक रखते हैं स्वतंत्रता का पक्ष। इस पुलियाबाज़ी में हम दोनों पक्षों के तर्क को समझने की कोशिश करेंगे।  क्या इसमें कोई समाधान की आशा है? वो तो आप ही सुनिए, सोचिये और बताइये। In this episode of Puliyabaazi, we delve into the philosophical debate between John Rawls and Robert Nozick on what makes a just society. What is more important? equality or liberty?John Rawls proposes the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, where individuals choose principles of justice for a society while not knowing their own social status. Robert Nozick, on the other hand, prioritizes individual liberty. His book Anarchy, State, and Utopia argues for minimal government intervention, emphasizing the right to keep what one has justly acquired. The Debate Heats UpThis episode is an exploration of these two differing points of view. We unpack their core arguments, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and delve into some real-world implications of their ideas.We discuss:* Is philosophy useful in crafting policy?* Rawls' Theory of Justice* Greatest Equal Liberty Principle* Maximin Principle* Do we really believe in equality?* Nozick's answer to Rawls* A patterned distribution will not workReadings:A Theory of Justice by John RawlsAnarchy, State and Utopia by Robert NozickListen to related Puliyabaazi:गांधी टैगोर की पुलियाबाज़ी. The Gandhi Tagore Debatesएक सवाल, कई जवाब: क्या सम्पत्ति कर आर्थिक असमानता से निजात दिला सकता है? Can wealth tax solve economic inequality?If you have any questions for the guest or feedback for us, please comment here or write to us at puliyabaazi@gmail.com. If you like our work, please subscribe and share this Puliyabaazi with your friends, family and colleagues.Website: https://puliyabaazi.inHosts: @saurabhchandra @pranaykotas @thescribblebeeTwitter: @puliyabaazi Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/puliyabaazi/Subscribe & listen to the podcast on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Castbox, AudioBoom, YouTube, Spotify or any other podcast app. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.puliyabaazi.in

I've recently experienced some major changes in my life, notably the fact that I've stepped away from a high-demand religion (Mormonism) recently. While I feel a wave of several emotions, I'm mainly excited for the rest of my life and the opportunity I have to question things for myself. I'm starting with this course because I hope that it will give me a chance to look outside of the bubble.The course can be accessed for free at: https://oyc.yale.edu/NODE/201About the Course (From Yale University's Site)Philosophy and the Science of Human Nature pairs central texts from Western philosophical tradition (including works by Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, Hobbes, Kant, Mill, Rawls, and Nozick) with recent findings in cognitive science and related fields. The course is structured around three intertwined sets of topics: Happiness and Flourishing; Morality and Justice; and Political Legitimacy and Social Structures.For the next 26-weeks, I'll do my best to provide you with a quick snapshot of how it's going. However, if you want to see the full experience, please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/@thereadwellpodcastIMPORTANT LINKS:

Dr. Aeon J. Skoble, Professor of Philosophy at Bridgewater State University and author of The Essential Nozick, once again joins host Rosemarie Fike to discuss Nozick's perennial philosophical insights and how they might be applied today, including personal autonomy, the inherent morality in limited government, and even what a future society based on these core principles could look like.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Aeon J. Skoble, Professor of Philosophy at Bridgewater State University and author of The Essential Nozick, joins host Rosemarie Fike to talk about Nozick's somewhat unconventional rise to prominence in the field of philosophy, as well as discuss Nozick's key insights on morality, individual rights, limited government and the free market.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we delve into the rich work of political philosophy by Leo Strauss, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick. We begin with Strauss's influential ideas on liberal education, examining how he views cultural cultivation as essential for intellectual development and a bulwark against the homogenization of mass culture. Strauss's Aristotelian perspective on nurturing the individual's nature through education sets the stage for a deeper exploration of societal structures.Transitioning to Rawls, we explore his innovative 'Veil of Ignorance' and the 'Original Position', concepts that have reshaped modern understandings of justice and fairness. Rawls' principles challenge us to consider a society where every individual's rights are safeguarded and inequalities are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged.Finally, we turn to Nozick's libertarian response, which emphasizes individual rights and the minimal state. Nozick's ideas on self-ownership and consensual contracts offer a stark contrast to Rawls, presenting a viewpoint where free exchange and personal liberty are paramount.Join us as we navigate these philosophical currents, understanding how each thinker builds upon or reacts against the others, shaping our views on education, justice, and the ideal society.Contact us via email at contact@opendoorphilosophy.com Open Door Philosophy on Instagram @opendoorphilosophyOpen Door Philosophy website at opendoorphilosophy.com

Sean bienvenidos a un nuevo directo en mi canal de Twitch que será luego colgado en video en mi canal de Odysee y también en formato audio en Ivoox. Allí como siempre tendrán en la descripción del podcast todos los enlaces de los artículos, videos y textos citados. Así es como empece la entradilla el dia 19 de octubre de 2023 pero a la media hora mi cuenta de Twitcht fue volatilizada y me he enterado que tanto LBRY como Odysee van a cerrar y mi cuenta va a desaparecer. No se si habrás logrado ver este video o tan solo escuchado el audio en Ivoox pero desde luego eres parte de eso que algunos denominan “la resistencia”. Ya saben que desde buscadores de la verdad huimos de la fragilidad de comentar la actualidad ya que esta es volátil y normalmente desaparece en cuanto nuevos pedazos de actualidad son vomitados por los medios masivos. Acabamos de olvidar la guerra de Ucrania porque las potencias mundiales tienen un nuevo juguete que se llama guerra de Gaza. En este caso voy a tocar de refilón todo lo que está pasando entre israelíes y palestinos para hablar sobre como nos engañan con las guerras fake y las falsas banderas. Por supuesto en todas las guerras mueren personas y se producen atrocidades a las que no deberíamos acostumbrarnos nunca. Voy a empezar con unas frases de Thierry Meyssan de su artículo “Cambio de paradigma en Palestina” ya que creo que es uno de los que mejor describen la complejidad de lo que sucede en Palestina y todos los actores que intervienen: “El sangriento conflicto iniciado en la Palestina geográfica se produce luego de 75 años de injusticias igualmente sangrientas. A la luz del Derecho Internacional, los palestinos tienen derecho –tanto como el deber– de oponer resistencia a la ocupación israelí. Los israelíes, por su parte, tienen igualmente derecho a responder a la agresión. Al mismo tiempo, nosotros tenemos, todos, la responsabilidad de ayudar a resolver las injusticias que sufren las dos partes, lo cual no quiere decir que apoyemos las crueldades y venganzas que cometen algunos individuos de ambos bandos. Por otro lado, el apoyo que merecen los pueblos palestino e israelí, no debe conducir a la impunidad de sus dirigentes respectivos por los crímenes que hayan cometido, como tampoco debe traducirse en impunidad para las potencias que los manipulan.” Hay que dejar claro desde el principio que tal como dice el sr Meyssan “la franja de Gaza es gobernada por el Hamas, la rama palestina de la Hermandad Musulmana. Los gobernantes de Gaza son individuos que no ven en el islam una forma de espiritualidad sino un arma de conquista, son asalariados, principalmente, del Reino Unido, de Qatar, de Israel, de Turquía, Irán y la Unión Europea.” Recordar a nuestros oyentes que la Hermandad Musulmana fue fundada en Egipto en 1928 por el jeque Hasán al Bana en plena construcción del canal de Suez cuando Egipto estaba lleno de extranjeros para dicha construcción. “Constructores”, ya saben, muchos de ellos masones. “En el momento de su creación, Hamas estaba financiado por el Reino Unido y tuvo el apoyo de los servicios secretos de Israel, deseoso de utilizarlo para debilitar el movimiento creado por Yaser Arafat. Israel asesinó después al líder religioso del Hamas, el jeque Yasin.” El antiguo aliado de Israel, “el Hamas palestino atacó Israel, el 7 de octubre de 2023, a las 6 de la mañana, o sea en ocasión del 50º aniversario de la “Guerra de octubre de 1973”, conocida en Occidente bajo la denominación israelí de “Guerra del Yom Kippur”.” Tenerse que creer que una de las fronteras mejor vigiladas del mundo haya sido asaltada sin prácticamente oposición y precisamente en dicho 50 aniversario es bastante ridículo, pero es que no solo han ido por mar y tierra, o utilizado el clásico lanzamiento de cohetes, esta vez debemos creer que se han introducido mediante parapentes motorizados. Curiosamente en la portada de The Economist de diciembre de 2012, hace 11 años exactos, vemos el uso de este sistema de ataque aéreo arriba del todo. Allí se están enfrentando palestinos e israelíes en medio del control del mundo por parte de los demonios. No dejen de ver esta portada. Debemos creernos que uno de los ejércitos mejor entrenados del mundo tenia solo a unos pocos soldados profesionales y un montón de gente haciendo la mili en las cercanías de dicha frontera y que el Mossad, uno de los servicios secretos mas eficaces, hizo caso omiso a pocos días del ataque a las advertencias del gobierno egipcio que había hablado en repetidas ocasiones con los israelíes sobre "algo grande", al igual que por parte de algunos rabinos ultraortodoxos. La inteligencia estadounidense advirtió la posibilidad de violencia días antes del ataque de Hamas y tampoco fue escuchada y recordemos que el ataque se produjo en el 50º aniversario de la “Guerra del Yom Kippur”, una fecha que obviamente tendrían ambos bandos señalada en el calendario. Según una investigación de CNN, los combatientes se entrenaron para el ataque en al menos seis lugares de Gaza, incluido uno situado a menos de un kilómetro y medio de la frontera con Israel. El sistema de alarma en la frontera no funcionó. Las cientos de cámaras que deben estar constantemente operativas parece que no vieron como se colaban centenares de terroristas a una hora donde ya se veía perfectamente, incluso no vieron la llegada de alguna excavadora gigante o el sonido de los enormes camiones que también utilizaron. Los sistemas electrónicos en la frontera, en cuya construcción y equipamiento Israel había invertido miles de millones de dólares, quedaron inútiles. Numerosas cámaras y sensores tampoco ayudaron a detectar y detener el ataque palestino, así como las patrullas de combate, que por alguna razón simplemente no estaban cerca. Los drones palestinos pudieron alcanzar fácilmente ametralladoras automáticas y torres de sensores, y los equipos de asalto de Hamás volaron tranquilamente la valla y cruzaron la frontera. Se ve perfectamente en algunos videos como no hay nadie en las torres de vigilancia mientras son bombardeadas con un dron. Nadie intenta atacarlos. Debido al fallo de la alarma, cientos de soldados de las FDI murieron en los campos, en los cuarteles y mientras dormían. Contrariamente a la creencia popular, los palestinos no pasaron por alto las fortificaciones y bases de las FDI. Asaltaron agresivamente tanto los puestos de control como las bases donde se encontraban soldados y vehículos blindados. Al mismo tiempo, Hamás dejó de utilizar los tanques que tenia al alcance, probablemente debido a la baja cualificación de los atacantes o tal vez a la falta de necesidad. Hay videos de los terroristas en medio de mas de media docena de tanques vacíos. Aún no está claro dónde se encontraban en aquel momento los centinelas, los guardias de seguridad y las fuerzas de cobertura. Hasta aproximadamente el mediodía del 7 de octubre, el gobierno israelí prácticamente no mostró respuesta a los combates. Tardaron siete largas horas en plantarle cara a estos terroristas que como decía el artículo de la CNN llevaban mas de 2 años planificando los ataques. La Sexta nos mostraba el otro dia campos de entrenamiento a cielo abierto pegados a la frontera israelí ensayando las técnicas de secuestros masivos a plena luz del día. ¡Sí, el telecreyente se lo traga todo hoy dia! Incluso se ha descubierto que portaban planos de las bases militares y del entorno del ataque. El Rabino Chananya Weisman afirmó que “Benjamin Netanyahu ordenó al ejército israelí que se retirara durante siete horas durante la invasión de Hamas”. En el campo es sábado por la mañana, Shabat. Sólo a las 14 o 15 horas las fuerzas de seguridad comenzaron a reunir reservistas y a organizar redadas de represalia. Sin embargo, la muerte del comandante de la brigada de infantería Nahal, Jonathan Steinberg, indica una reacción apresurada con fuerzas que de alguna manera pudieron reunirse de inmediato. Al parecer, la intervención de Nahal en las batallas contra Hamás fue iniciada por el comandante de la brigada y no fue una orden directa del Estado Mayor. Posiblemente no sabia nada de los planes que alguien había decidido para aquel dia. En cuanto al ataque de la fiesta hippie en el Kibbutz Re’im justo en la zona donde se llevaron a cabo los ataques y donde supuestamente al menos 280 participantes fueron violados y masacrados toca decir que solo tres días antes de dicha celebración se supo la zona de celebración acercándola a la frontera de Gaza. El evento SUPERNOVA SUKKOT | 06-07.10 | UNIVERSO PARALELO ISRAEL EDITION fue creado el 21 de junio en la web TRIBE of Nova y como digo no se supo la localización del evento hasta el dia 4 de octubre. En la web de dicho evento podíamos leer: “Crearás un entorno seguro para encontrar la calma interior, la paz, la armonía, el equilibrio mental, la liberación de tensiones o preocupaciones innecesarias, descansar o simplemente relajarte divirtiéndote con personas especiales y enriqueciéndote a ti mismo de una manera nueva y refrescante.” Un evento con unas 3000 personas situado a menos de 4 kilómetros de la valla que separa los territorios de Gaza, en medio de una zona desértica sin ningún soldado israelí vigilando en la zona, tan solo algunos miembros de seguridad privada. Eso era un entorno seguro para esta gente. ¿Y qué opina parte de la opinión pública israelí tras este entrecomillas “ataque sorpresa” de Hamas? Pues según el Jerusalem Post “Los israelíes culpan al gobierno por la masacre de Hamás y dicen que Netanyahu debe dimitir”. “Cuatro de cada cinco judíos israelíes creen que el gobierno y el primer ministro Benjamín Netanyahu son los culpables de la infiltración masiva de terroristas de Hamas en Israel y la masacre que siguió, según una nueva encuesta del Centro de Diálogo publicada el jueves. Una abrumadora mayoría: el 86% de los encuestados, incluido el 79% de los partidarios de la coalición, dijo que el ataque sorpresa desde Gaza es un fracaso del liderazgo del país , mientras que un asombroso 92% dijo que la guerra está causando ansiedad. Además, casi todos los encuestados (94%) creen que el gobierno debe asumir alguna responsabilidad por la falta de preparación en materia de seguridad que condujo al ataque, y más del 75% dice que el gobierno tiene la mayor parte de la responsabilidad.” Para nosotros todo esto es una nueva falsa bandera, un nuevo 11S, para salirse con la suya dentro de las Estrategias de Manipulación de las que hablaba Noam Chomsky. Crear problemas y después ofrecer soluciones. Este método también es llamado "problema-reacción-solución". En este caso parece que se buscaban tres soluciones finales: La primera sería lograr superar el bache político en el que está envuelto el primer ministro Benjamín Netanyahu por la polémica reforma judicial, que tiene el objetivo de reducir la jurisdicción de la Corte Suprema sobre las decisiones del Poder Legislativo israelí. La segunda acabar de una vez por todas con el problema del terrorismo en la franja de Gaza impidiendo que se escondan terroristas en medio de una gran ciudad haciendo que la mayor ciudad de la franja quede reducida a escombros. Recordemos que Hamas tiene cada vez más poderío militar gracias a las suculentas donaciones de entre otros la UE. Para ello Israel debe pasar a ser el indefenso que es atacado sin piedad por bestias inhumanas. ¿Creen que un ataque así favorece en algo a las reivindicaciones del pueblo palestino? Y en tercer lugar hacerse con el control de por lo menos una gran parte de la costa que ocupa actualmente la franja de Gaza para poder reclamar el acceso a los yacimientos gasísticos que se conocen desde 1990 pero que se han revalorizado a niveles estratosféricos desde el 2009. Luego hablaré más en profundidad sobre esto. Que el mundo se haya creído que una de las fronteras mejor vigiladas haya sido asaltada sin prácticamente oposición y precisamente en el 50 aniversario es bastante ridículo...pero que además las imágenes que nos ofrezcan del bando asaltante incluyan muñecos de goma como este supuesto soldado israelí es para que nos lo hagamos mirar. ¡Miren bien estas imágenes, no existen soldados con todos los huesos del cuerpo rotos haciendo guardia encima de un tanque! Esto solo puede significar dos cosas: estas imágenes son montaje del bando judío para lograr la tensión necesaria, el casus belli, el motivo de guerra…recuerden “problema-reacción-solución". O que ambos bandos en su nivel superior están en lo mismo, ambos son parte del NWO global y son utilizados con un fin. Ambas cúpulas dirigentes son parte de un culto global que cada vez asoma mas la patita. Pero es que podemos ver también campañas de desinformación con muñecos bebé simulando ser niños asesinados en los recientes bombardeos del ejército israelí o incluso el supuesto bombardeo de un convoy de civiles palestinos que intentaba desplazarse hasta la zona egipcia. En ambos casos, nosotros debemos ser neutrales. 50 años más tarde volvemos a tener un ataque histórico contra Israel, recuerden que la crisis del petróleo empezó a costa de esa crispación por la toma de los altos del Golán y la correspondiente reacción del ejército israelí que ya había demostrado en 1967 de lo que era capaz. No defiendo el uso de la violencia por ninguna de las partes. Mucho me temo que esta nueva crisis que se avecina también tendrá su componente económico mundial y sea utilizada tal vez para dar el espaldarazo final a la moneda digital de los gobiernos, las famosas CBDCs. Desgraciadamente una paz duradera y una repartición de los enormes recursos de la zona, todo el gas y petróleo de la zona suponen unos 545.000 millones de dólares, supondría un enorme beneficio para ambas partes. “La guerra es la salida cobarde a los problemas de la paz”. Thomas Mann, escritor alemán. Y ahora veamos más de cerca algunos de esos eventos de falsa bandera para comprender que hemos vuelto a ser engañados y que algunas personas que se conocen han decidido que se maten entre si personas que no se conocen para ser aún mas ricas. ………………………………………………………………………………………. Hemos visto una comparecencia del senador Ron Paul contándonos las verdades del barquero, esas cosas que la TV no suele repetir a menudo. Pero sí, podríamos decir que el terrorismo de Hamas es una creación de los Estados Unidos en unión con Israel y que toda la radicalización del mundo musulmán ha venido sobrevenida en gran parte por la injerencia de servicios secretos extranjeros para rodear con una especie de cortafuegos a Rusia. (005 Palestinos e israelíes en la cama) Pero yo voy a ir más lejos, yo creo que ambas partes la del terrorismo de Hamas y el terrorismo del sionismo que maltrata de forma inhumana a los árabes que ha encerrado en Israel están en la misma cama y son parte de la agenda 2030 del tiparraco del WEF, el señor Klaus Schwab. A Israel y a USA no les interesa que el problema palestino termine y ni mucho menos los están exterminando. Tan solo hay que ver la gráfica del crecimiento de población en la franja de Gaza. Las mujeres gazadies tienen una media de 4,5 hijos frente a los 1,2 de las españolas, bueno ya me entienden, de los niños que nacen en España gracias a la inmigración extranjera. Vamos a contarles como he dicho antes algo que no les contara el periodismo que calla, ese que miente todos los días y que trabaja para el poder-religión en la sombra. Resulta que frente a la franja de Gaza hay un enorme campo marino con petróleo y gas para aburrir. Desde que la petrolera británica BG Group descubrió en el año 2000 unos 45.000 millones de metros cúbicos de gas recuperable en el mar de Gaza no ha habido forma de ponerse de acuerdo a la hora de repartirse el pastel. Y lo más curioso es que como pueden ver en este mapa de la zona que está bloqueada y pertenece a la exploración de esa compañía, hay dos zonas bien definidas una más cerca de la Egipto y otra más al norte. “En 2019 un importante estudio de la ONU concluyó que “la ocupación sigue impidiendo a los palestinos desarrollar sus yacimientos energéticos (petróleo y gas) para explotar y beneficiarse de estos activos”. Así, al pueblo palestino se le han negado los beneficios de utilizar este recurso natural para financiar el desarrollo socioeconómico y satisfacer sus necesidades energéticas. Las pérdidas acumuladas se estiman en miles de millones de dólares.” Podemos seguir leyendo en un interesantísimo artículo que compartir en la descripción del podcast en Ivoox titulado “La multinacional Chevron saquea el petróleo de Gaza con el apoyo de Estados Unidos”: “El valor neto de estos recursos asciende a 524.000 millones de dólares, que deberían repartirse adecuadamente entre las distintas partes, incluidas Israel y Palestina: “Estos yacimientos podrían unificarse, y su desarrollo podría llevarse a cabo en nombre de todas las partes, cuyos derechos de propiedad tendrían que establecerse antes de la explotación… Los palestinos tienen un gran interés no sólo en los yacimientos situados bajo su territorio, sino en todas las reservas comunes”. Según el informe, los palestinos ya han perdido aproximadamente 2.570 millones de dólares debido a que “Israel les impide el ejercicio de su derecho a beneficiarse de la explotación de sus recursos naturales, garantizado por el derecho internacional. Cuanto más tiempo impida Israel a los palestinos explotar sus reservas de petróleo y gas natural, mayores serán los costes de oportunidad de estas reservas y los costes de la ocupación que soportan los palestinos”.” Si dividiésemos la franja de Gaza en dos se podría repartir ese gas como buenos hermanos entre Israel y los Palestinos. Y eso, señores, es la hipótesis que creo que esta debajo de esta falsa bandera que estamos padeciendo en estos momentos. Un acuerdo off the record entre las potencias implicadas Turquia, Qatar, Egipto, Palestina, Israel y Estados Unidos y el verdadero poder que se mantiene por encima de estas supuestas naciones soberanas. Dejar atrás un bloqueo histórico de esos recursos naturales con la excusa del terrorismo y mediante la guerra posterior repartirse un botín de guerra billonario. Para ello se está utilizando una fuerte campaña de Fake news y de programación mediante el trauma para hacernos caer en uno de los dos bandos. Este video no corresponde al conflicto actual entre Israel y Palestina, se trata de un documental palestino de la artista de maquillaje Mariam Salah de hace aproximadamente 6 años. Sin embargo es una de las noticias falsas que corre como la pólvora en Twitter. La desinformación campa a sus anchas y tenemos que ver supuestos bombardeos de caravanas de ciudadanos intentando huir de la zona de Gaza que los israelíes quieren controlar. Ya saben dividir en dos la franja de Gaza para poder repartirse el botín de guerra, ese mas de medio billón de dólares en gas y petróleo. Ya han visto, bueno, no han visto porque los medios censuran y pixelan las imágenes, así que vamos a verlas sin pixelar y desde la neutralidad y la tranquilidad que da saber que son parte de un teatrillo y que no ha muerto nadie. Bueno, tenemos a una doctora así que vamos a dejar que opine, pero yo veo que ningún vehículo ha sufrido daños que indiquen un bombardeo aéreo. Veo cristales impolutos, veo un camión sin daños exteriores, no veo ningún cráter de un bombardeo, en fin, veo un montaje hollywoodense como diría Pedro Bustamante. Lo curioso del tema es que ningún bando acusa al otro de colar videos falsos. Los videos como el del soldado israelí de trapo que es arrojado al suelo desde el tanque es aprovechado por los dos bandos garantizando su autenticidad. Los israelíes no denuncian que eso es un muñeco y obviamente los terroristas de Hamas tampoco dicen esta boca es mía. Ya nos la metieron doblada con la utilización de muñecos durante la Tragipandemia así que espero que no seamos tan tontos y volvamos a caer en lo mismo. ………………………………………………………………………………………. En estos momentos tan duros donde la desinformación campa a sus anchas y se busca lograr un conflicto global es bueno recordar que en las guerras siempre se miente y como Colin Powell nos mintió a todos con aquellas "armas de destrucción masiva”. Cómo nuestro entonces presidente J.M. Aznar se unió a aquella mentira y nos hizo participar en una guerra injusta. ¿Viven mejor o peor que con su anterior régimen los iraquíes? ¿Es más seguro el mundo tras aquella guerra injustificable? La verdad a veces tarda demasiado tiempo en abrirse camino. Hoy día muchos millones de personas siguen pensando en que USA hizo bien en erradicar el régimen iraquí y matar a millones de personas. Pero solo hay una verdad, con muchas vertientes, pero solo hay una. Yo llevo denunciando las mentiras de ambos bandos desde hace mucho. Cómo por ejemplo en este atentado del ISIL el 20 de marzo de 2015. ¿Bombas que no mueven del sitio libros y hojas de papel? Falsos atentados como el de Boston. Todo para aterrorizar a un público que solo ve la TV y lee los periódicos. Un público obediente que teme salirse de lo que diga el mainstream...yo vi aquel video "no oficial" y aquello fue puro teatro. La TV es experta en engañarnos. Este es Charles Jaco corresponsal en la Guerra del Golfo para la CNN. Fue muy famoso. Y sí, algunas veces estuvo allí...pero no siempre. Los televidentes norteamericanos esperaban pacientes su dosis de guerra de su periodista favorito. Pero el no estaba en Irak, estaba trabajando en un estudio con pantalla verde. ¿No me creen? He troceado estos 34 segundos para que vean que todo era falso. Las palmeras. El hotel. El fondo en llamas. ¡Todo estaba siendo grabado en un estudio! Las fotos de "este héroe" se venden por cientos de dólares. Eso es la TV. Pura propaganda de guerra. Sean todo lo neutrales que puedan y todo lo críticos que les permita su cosmovisión. Y recuerden que los verdaderos gangsters no se dejan ver...ni siquiera son los que aparecen abajo de este meme. Hago mías las palabras de Antonio Pampliega: "En una guerra, la primera víctima es la verdad y la pena es que nuestras fotografías no paren el conflicto. Lo que no se ve, no existe y hay que darle siempre visibilidad”. Pero tengan mucho cuidado con los medios de "comunicación" ya que sus intereses no son los de sus “telecreyentes". Acuérdense de la fotografía de los turistas japoneses asesinados por Isis donde solo 2 soles podían darnos una explicación lógica. Todo el mundo se creyó este video. Fíjense bien en la sombra del cuello de los turistas japoneses. Hasta la cadena FOX dijo que era un montaje. Fue tan burdo aquello que dejaron de bombardearnos con estas supuestas muertes. Muchos canales "conspiranoicos" hablaron de aquello incluso disidencia controlada como el Sr Jones. Incluso apareció un video del supuesto estudio donde se realizaban estás grabaciones del ISIS. Sé qué es muy duro enfrentarse a las emociones y ver con absoluta neutralidad y sangre fría este tipo de acciones terroristas (vengan de donde vengan) pero la realidad es una. Llevan fingiendo demasiado tiempo y por fortuna hemos empezado a pillarles su juego como en este video donde se simula la explosión de un coche bomba en un barrio de Irak en 2017 y cuyas imágenes fueron distribuidas por todo el mundo en los telediarios de la época. No caigamos en su juego. ………………………………………………………………………………………. La masacre de la Escuela Primaria de Sandy Hook fue un tiroteo escolar que ocurrió el viernes 14 de diciembre de 2012, en la escuela primaria local Sandy Hook (Sandy Hook Elementary School) de Newtown, Connecticut, Estados Unidos. Según los informes oficiales murieron, por lo menos, veintiocho personas entre ellos el niño judio Noah Pozner que casualmente podemos ver en los carteles de otro escenario en Pakistán donde al menos 132 escolares habrían muerto en un ataque talibán a una escuela. Casualmente fue el 16 de diciembre de 2014, solo dos años más tarde. Gordon Duff, un Veterano de la Infantería de Marina en Vietnam, diplomático retirado, autor y redactor jefe de Veterans Today contaba en un articulo del 2013 que “recientes revelaciones terroríficas sobre los ocupantes de una «casa de seguridad» del Mossad, en un exclusivo barrio de Greenwich Village, en la ciudad de Nueva York, involucrados no sólo en los ataques terroristas de Sandy Hook, sino también en intentos por inculpar de forma manifiesta a grupos «neonazis», se ha vuelto un desastre para Israel. No se requiere mucha imaginación para presumir que el grupo israelí planificaba inculpar a los «neo-nazis» portadores de armas por la matanza de Sandy Hook y apoyar la demanda del alcalde de Nueva York, Bloomberg, para confiscar armas a nivel nacional.” Esto nos debería hacer reflexionar sobre cómo nos han estado engañando desde hace mucho utilizando técnicas tan primitivas como el uso de maniquís. La masacre de la Escuela Secundaria de Columbine fue un tiroteo escolar ocurrido el 20 de abril de 1999 en Columbine. ¿Algo muy serio verdad? Uno de los primeros tiroteos con muertos, en este caso 10 víctimas mortales y 15 heridos. Esta tragedia se tornó viral desde el minuto uno y el director de los progres Michael Moore filmó la película documental Bowling for Columbine que ganó varios premios, entre ellos el Óscar a la mejor película documental. Todo esto se utilizó para intentar retirar el permiso de armas a la población civil. Pero veamos algunas de las imágenes que nos mostró la TV sobre aquella matanza. Sí, había un muñeco en el escenario y no pasa nada…los borreguitos siguieron viendo la TV como si nada. Pero aún tenemos un caso mas claro en el tiroteo en el aeropuerto de los Ángeles. El tiroteo se produjo la mañana del 1 de noviembre de 2013 en el Aeropuerto Internacional de Los Ángeles (LAX), y como verán la policía, los técnicos sanitarios y los cuerpos se seguridad estuvieron muy entretenidos paseando a un muñeco por allí. Pero si hay una falsa bandera importante es el 11S o 11 de septiembre en USA. En la descripción del podcast os dejaré el enlace a una pestaña de mi blog donde trato este tema dentro del apartado Cloacas del sistema. Deciros que la mayor censura que yo he sufrido ha sido por compartir un documental sobre las torres gemelas donde se hablaba sobre su construcción. En un artículo titulado “Modern Marvels. World Trade Center los minutos que desaparecen” nuestro amigo Nozick nos explicaba que en dicho documental se contaba como las Torres Gemelas fueron diseñadas para soportar el impacto de los mayores aviones diseñados en esa época. Misteriosamente dicho documental estaba desapareciendo de Youtube. Un documental que se emitió integro en todo el mundo en el canal Historia y que a raíz del autoatentado del 11S fue censurado a nivel global. Las veces que he intentado compartir el documental entero en YouTube o en Archive punto org he sido en un caso castigado con un strike y borrado el video y en el otro expulsado sin miramientos de una plataforma donde se supone que no hay censura. Podéis encontrar el documental en todos lados pero capado, esto es, sin el trozo donde salía el diseñador principal del World Trade Center, el señor A. Martini, diciendo que había diseñado las torres para resistir el impacto de los aviones mas grandes de la época. Pero oigamos de su propia voz esto. Edificios ultra resistentes que no soportan un incendio de queroseno que obviamente no puede derretir el metal ni dañarlo ya que encima se acababa de proteger las vigas para este tipo de eventos. Lo dicho, esto es lo que hay. Grandes intereses económicos y manejo de energías a nivel planetario con fines muy oscuros. Invitados: …. Dra Yane #JusticiaParaUTP Médico y Buscadora de la verdad. Con Dios siempre! No permito q me dividan c/izq -derecha, raza, religión ni nada de la Creación. https://youtu.be/TXEEZUYd4c0 …. UTP Ramón Valero @tecn_preocupado Un técnico Preocupado un FP2 IVOOX UTP http://cutt.ly/dzhhGrf BLOG http://cutt.ly/dzhh2LX CANALES TELEGRAM Promocional donde hacemos los directos https://t.me/UnTecnicoPreocupado Abierto para comentarios https://t.me/MiVidaMiOxigeno Ayúdame desde mi Crowfunding aquí https://cutt.ly/W0DsPVq ………………………………………………………………………………………. Enlaces citados en el podcast: Video en mi canal UGETUBE De guerras en Gaza y falsas banderas https://ugetube.com/watch/QL9HBGPwsTn9BYe Cambio de paradigma en Palestina https://www.voltairenet.org/article219790.html La inteligencia estadounidense advirtió la posibilidad de violencia días antes del ataque de Hamas https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2023/10/13/inteligencia-estadounidense-posibilidad-enfrentamiento-gaza-hamas-trax/ vídeo completo de @davidicke sobre la situación actual y sus antecedentes https://twitter.com/JuGar777/status/1713333906919838150 Los israelíes culpan al gobierno por la masacre de Hamás y dicen que Netanyahu debe dimitir: encuesta https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-767880 Benjamin Netanyahu ordenó al ejército israelí que se retirara durante siete horas durante la invasión de Hamas https://twitter.com/Blacksh49424801/status/1713470054719705197 portada The Economist december 2012 (Hace 11 años exactos) https://img.discountmags.com/products/extras/114409-the-economist-cover-2012-december-20-issue-jpg? Tribe Of Nova Presents - SUPERNOVA SUKKOT | 06-07.10 | UNIVERSO PERALELLO ISRAEL EDITION https://www.eventer.co.il/event/novaparalellotranslate/qCqCL Localización del evento 4 octubre SUPERNOVA SUKKOT | 06-07.10 https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=636393125343556&set=a.387136230269248 https://www.google.com/maps/place/31%C2%B023'52.0%22N+34%C2%B028'18.1%22E/@31.4062681,34.3970073,13z/data=!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d31.39777!4d34.47168?hl=es&entry=ttu Unthinkable: Hamas Infiltration Turns Rave into Mayhem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev-clsHR61E Nuevos vídeos de la matanza de Hamas durante un festival en Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCTFMTGs3R0 Discurso Historico de Gordon Duff en Damasco Siria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfU61MjW_E0&t=4s Marine Vietnam veteran, retired diplomat, author, Senior Editor at Veterans Today, national security adviser to governments in Europe, Africa and Asia https://twitter.com/gpduf?lang=es La «cacería de brujas» israelí paraliza la libertad de expresión y al CPI https://rebelion.org/la-caceria-de-brujas-israeli-paraliza-la-libertad-de-expresion-y-al-cpi/ Campos de entrenamiento a cielo abierto pegados a la frontera israelí ensayando las técnicas de secuestros masivos a plena luz del día https://twitter.com/JuanmiGG_News/status/1713241190449983697 Senador Ron Paul: “Hamás fue creado y financiado por Israel y EE. UU.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BNDHYS79HU La multinacional Chevron saquea el petróleo de Gaza con el apoyo de Estados Unidos https://mpr21.info/la-multinacional-chevron-saquea-el-petroleo-de-gaza-con-el-apoyo-de-estados-unidos/ Palestinian film industry | Cinema | Showcase https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwpchsSe5dI Bonus Track: Collin Powell ante el Consejo de Seguridad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U1rqFpCKCk GUERRA DE IRAK: CÓMO ESTADOS UNIDOS DESINFORMÓ SOBRE LAS ARMAS DE DESTRUCCIÓN MASIVA https://verifica.efe.com/guerra-irak-estados-unidos-desinformo-armas-destruccion-masiva/ Atentados de Saná de 2015 https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atentados_de_San%C3%A1_de_2015 Los niños "muertos" en Sandy Hook, vivitos y cantando. https://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/threads/los-ninos-muertos-en-sandy-hook-vivitos-y-cantando.488169/ Vídeo premonitorio masacre de Newton USA https://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/threads/video-premonitorio-masacre-de-newton-usa.374509/ CURIOSIDADES SOBRE EL CASO SANDY HOOK - EL NIÑO QUE SE MURIÓ DOS VECES https://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/threads/curiosidades-sobre-el-caso-sandy-hook-el-nino-que-se-murio-dos-veces.1625743/ Niño judío asesinado a tiros varias veces en el atentado de Newtown https://forward.com/news/167759/jewish-child-shot-multiple-times-in-newtown-rampag/?amp=1 Al menos 132 escolares muertos en un ataque talibán en Pakistán https://elpais.com/internacional/2014/12/16/actualidad/1418716401_117631.html SANDY HOOK INTELLIGENCE TEST - Ver a través de la falsa bandera con terribles actores de crisis https://odysee.com/@Gravy:7/SandyHook:5 La «cacería de brujas» israelí paraliza la libertad de expresión y al CPI https://rebelion.org/la-caceria-de-brujas-israeli-paraliza-la-libertad-de-expresion-y-al-cpi/ Masacre de la Escuela Secundaria de Columbine https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masacre_de_la_Escuela_Secundaria_de_Columbine 11S https://tecnicopreocupado.com/falsas-banderas/11s/ CASTIGO EN YOUTUBE A NOZICK POR COLGAR MODERN MARVELS https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2014/06/10/castigo-en-youtube-a-nozick-por-colgar-modern-marvels/ ……………………………………………………………….. Música utilizada en este podcast: Tema inicial Heros ……………………………………………………………….. Epílogo Marichal - Retorcido Mundo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgkzz8-_baA videos 001 soldado israeli tanque 1:36 002 Bebé muñeco palestinos 0:37 004 Ron Paul dice que Hamas es Israel 2:01 010 Actores de crisis árabes en película 0:26 011 Supuesta caravana bombardeada por Israel saliendo Gaza 0 0:59 012 caravana palestina sin censurar bombardeada por Israel saliendo Gaza 2:36 013 judíos orinan en terroristas 0:21 013a Muñeco hospital anciano Covid 0:22 014 Colin Powell armas destrucción masiva 0:31 016 Bush armas de destrucción masiva Irak 0:39 021 Charles Jaco Guerra del Golfo CNN corto 0:34 025 Verdaderas noticias falsas 1 4:27 025a FOX Inteligencia americana 0:45 029a FALSO ATENTANDO PILLADOS INFRAGANTIS 1:54 030 Barcelona_Attack_HOAX_All_ISIS_vehiculos sin sangre 0:50 032 Discurso Hist rico de Gordon Duff en Damasco Siria 8:09 033 Fake news pandemia guerra Ucrania 2:19 034 Falseflag Columbine muñeco 1:20 035 LAX_SHOOTING_DUMMY__Proof_of_Hoax___LAX_ 2:46 036 Frank A Martini sobre impacto de avión 11S doblado españ 0:36 38 General Wesley Clark guerra en 7 paises en 5 años 11S 2:38

Looking at concepts such as the “difference principle” and “entitlement theory” --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/humanitymatters/support

NOTE: we'll be doing replays and occassional hot-take updates between now and January next year, when we will release our next season! The episode that started it all...Should billionaires exist? We explore classic perspectives from the likes of Nozick and Rawls and give some context on just how much a billion is! Old description: In this first episode, Jake and Ant explore the moral implications of extreme wealth inequality. Can billionaires co-exist with a population in poverty? When, if ever, is it right to takeaway someone's private property? Do we deserve the cash we inherit any less than the talents we inherit by birth? Support the show: Please leave us a review! Spotify even now let's you do it - see that little star icon - go on, give it a click. Reviews are a great way to help others find the show, and it makes us feel all warm inside. Know anyone who likes to think about or debate the kind of topics we cover? Spread the word - and you'll have our gratitude. Here's the link to our new community whatsapp, where we'll discuss episodes and ask our most engaged listeners what sort of topics/formats they most enjoy. If you're a fan of the show, please consider signing up to our Patreon. A small subscription goes a long way towards supporting the show - and it makes us feel all warm inside too. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does it always seem like it's the people who move to the village that complain about the church bells? Or it is those that move next to a pub that are irritated by noise? It seems to indicate that there is an optimal way to live harmoniously. But how does the idea of neighbourliness work and what does it tell us about the nature of society? In this week's podcast, we discuss noisy neighbours. Is annoying your neighbour a tale as old as time or is it a relatively recent phenomenon? We discuss trap and drill music, Horst-Wessel-Lied, whistling, Isaiah Berlin, Coase theorem, intentional communities, Nozick's framework for utopia and cohousing. Finally, we share when we've been annoying neighbours and when we've been most annoyed. A few things we mentioned in this podcast: - Classical musician forced out of London flat after noise complaints https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/14/musician-forced-london-flat-fiona-fey-mediaeval-babes-noise-abatement - The Independent Society of Musicians https://www.ism.org/?/join&gclid=CjwKCAjw6vyiBhB_EiwAQJRophs1VCEGCbtO6LFdOy9-016Q1kcqeGdUrttw82iys2x3KyUfmu2qmBoCNVEQAvD_BwE - Forager, Farmer Morals https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/forager-vs-farmer-moralityhtml - Adult ADHD: How to Succeed as a Hunter in a Farmer's World https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adult-ADHD-Succeed-Hunter-Farmers/dp/1620555751 - Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/ For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The national purpose of the American state is to realize and then sustain the democracy and the equality that was the promise of our founding. I believe that requires perennial struggle and … groups like Black Lives Matter are an essential part of that struggle … Those are the social movements I hope to join, support, and that I hope will always be qualified by the adjective ‘liberal'. – Michael Walzer, NBN interview (2023) In the 1990 collection What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings edited by Solomon and Murphy and published by Oxford, teachers had a textbook to help introduce students to a broad cross-section of political thinkers ranging from Hobbes to Hegel to Hayek to Mill, Nozick, Rawls, Sandel, Taylor and Walzer among others. It is worth mentioning because Michael Walzer insists he is not a formal philosopher, does not in fact, deserve to be grouped with the likes of a Dewey or a Hegel, as Richard Rorty had done in the introduction of his 1999 collection of essays in Philosophy and Social Hope: ‘Recently Michael Walzer, a political philosopher best known for his earlier work, Spheres of Justice, has come to Hegel's and Dewey's defense. In his more recent book Thick and Thin, Walzer argues that we should not think of the customs and institutions of particular societies as accidental accretions around a common core of universal moral rationality, the transcultural moral law. Rather, we should think of the thick set of customs and institutions as prior, and as what commands moral allegiance.' Rorty's broader point remains as relevant as arguably, the positions of the political philosophers as collected in the Solomon and Murphy reader mentioned above, What is Justice?, which also recognized the appeal of Walzer's ‘very different approach' to the Rawls' paradigmatic A Theory of Justice. That same collection also shares Nozick's critical response to Rawls - mentioned because of the well-known course, ‘Capitalism and Socialism', that Robert Nozick and Michael Walzer taught together at Harvard. A former student, the Washington Post columnist, Brookings senior fellow, and policy professor E.J. Dionne once said: it was one of the best courses he ever took, adding, it was Michael Walzer ‘who very much shaped my view'. A short list of Professor Walzer's book titles include Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice - A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, Politics and Passion, The Jewish Political Tradition, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, A Foreign Policy for the Left, as well as a published conversation - Justice is Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory - published by Polity in 2020. This interview focuses primarily on his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective (2023, Yale University Press) which does much to clarify a simple, yet crucial distinction, between liberal and illiberal sensibilities underlying the pluralism, populism, and polarization today. Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and editor emeritus at Dissent magazine. Professor Walzer studied on a Fulbright Fellowship at Cambridge and completed his PhD in government at Harvard University. Keith Krueger can be reached at keithNBn@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Support our Sponsor! Daily Harvest - https://www.daily-harvest.com/milehigher  Time Stamps 2:52 - The self-driving car ethical dilemma 24:01 - Trolley Problem 46:06 - Nozick's Experience Machine NCMEC x Kendall Rae Donation link: https://give.missingkids.org/kendallrae  Mile Higher Merch: https://bit.ly/3bY0NAp Charity Merch for NCMEC:  https://bit.ly/3R6eTj0 Check out our vlog channel https://www.youtube.com/c/Kendaily Check out our other podcasts! The Sesh https://bit.ly/3Mtoz4X Lights Out https://bit.ly/3n3Gaoe Planet Sleep https://linktr.ee/planetsleep Higher Love Wellness Co https://higherlovewellness.com/ Get 10% Off by entering code: homies Higher Love Wellness IG: @higherlovewellnessco Higher Love Wellness TW: @higherlovecbd MHP Merch: http://milehighermerch.com Join our official FB group! https://bit.ly/3kQbAxg Join our Discord community, it's free! https://discord.gg/hZ356G9 MHP YouTube: http://bit.ly/2qaDWGf Are You Subscribed On Apple Podcast & Spotify?! Support MHP by leaving a rating or review on Apple Podcast :) https://apple.co/2H4kh58 MHP Topic Request Form: https://forms.gle/gUeTEzL9QEh4Hqz88 Merch designer application: https://forms.gle/ha2ErBnv1gK4rj2Y6 You can follow us on all the things: @milehigherpod Twitter: http://twitter.com/milehigherpod Instagram: http://instagram.com/milehigherpod YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/milehigherp... Hosts: Kendall: @kendallraeonyt IG: http://instagram.com/kendallraeonyt TW: https://twitter.com/kendallraeonyt YT: https://www.youtube.com/c/kendallsplace Josh: @milehigherjosh IG: http://instagram.com/milehigherjosh TW: https://twitter.com/milehigherjosh Producers: Janelle: @janelle_fields_ IG: https://www.instagram.com/janelle_fie... TW: https://twitter.com/janelle_fields_ Karelly: @karell.y IG: https://bit.ly/2TcxnoD   TW: https://bit.ly/3f9ngcN  ✉ Send Us Mail & Fan Art ✉ Kendall Rae & Josh Thomas 8547 E Arapahoe Rd Ste J # 233 Greenwood Village, CO 80112 Music By: Mile Higher Boys YT: https://bit.ly/2Q7N5QO Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/0F4ik...

A discussion of the main points of Kerry Baldwin's article on economics, social relations, and the question of the inevitability of the state in a properly-functioning society. Robert Nozick's economic argument for the immaculate conception of the state, and Russel Kirk's social argument for states are both answered. A non-monopolistic view of civil governance is placed in terms of "sphere sovereignty" and a non-individualistic and non-collectivistic view of society. https://reformedlibertarians.com/009/ 00:00 Start 00:32 Episode description Article: https://libertarianchristians.com/2018/04/11/economics-hierarchy-states-inevitability/ Part 1 on law and order and the question of civil governance legitimacy: https://reformedlibertarians.com/003 Part 2 on human sinfulness and the question of civil governance necessity: https://reformedlibertarians.com/005 01:45 Summary overview of article 03:20 The economic argument for the state's supposed inevitability, as presented by Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465051006?tag=kerrybaldwin-20 04:24 Murray Rothbard's refutation of Nozick's hypothetical "immaculate conception of the state" Text: https://mises.org/library/robert-nozick-and-immaculate-conception-state Audio: https://mises.org/library/29-robert-nozick-and-immaculate-conception-state 04:43 Nozick's false assumption about contract and Rothbard on title-transfer view of contract Text: https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts Audio: https://mises.org/library/19-property-rights-and-theory-contracts 06:39 Nozick's false assumption about dispute resolution and Bob Murphy's "Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?" on the realistic alternative to combat Text: https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7fJCtv90Pc 07:55 Nozick's false assumption about agreements and organizational merger and the counter-example of Ancient Ireland's non-monopolistic legal order https://mises.org/library/private-law-emerald-isle 09:53 The social argument for the state's supposed inevitability, as presented by Russel Kirk in his 10 Conservative Principles, from the principle of variety https://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/ from his book The Politics of Prudence https://www.amazon.com/dp/1932236554?tag=kerrybaldwin-20 12:09 The Reformed Libertarianism statement https://reformedlibertarians.com/reformed-libertarianism-statement/ Why the worst rise to the top of the state https://fee.org/articles/hayek-was-right-the-worst-do-get-to-the-top/ 13:10 The neocalvinist and reformational view of society (sphere sovereignty) as a superior alternative to individualistic and collectivistic views of society https://www.academia.edu/32356017/Dooyeweerds_Societal_Sphere_Sovereignty_2017_revision_ 14:56 Praxeological / methodological individualism (recognizing that only individual persons properly act) is not an individualistic view of society 16:35 Society is not a single thing, nor something normatively governed "overall" 18:44 No specific community normatively governs all the others of that same kind, whether familial, ecclesial, or civil (or any other kind) The Reformed Libertarians Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute: https://libertarianchristians.com and a member of the Christians for Liberty Network: https://christiansforliberty.net Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com  

We all have a hole in our soul. And we look around at the universe for something to fill it. Youthfulness doesn't last, money doesn't heal all wounds, and every technological advancement only makes the problem worse.  For some, even religion hasn't given them the satisfaction they seek. As every day goes by, and we march closer and closer to death, our soul cries out, “is that all there is?”What if I told you that the God I serve—the God I found in Jesus Christ—provides the answer to the deepest longings of your heart? He can fill that hole in your soul that money, relationships, and even religion can't fill. And what he offers is no pie in the sky; it will resonate with you.The sermon today is titled "A Faith Worthy Of Our Longings." It is the second installment in our "Worthy Faith" Series. The Scripture reading is from John 14:6. Originally preached at the West Side Church of Christ (Searcy, AR) on October 30, 2022. All lessons fit under one of 5 broad categories: Begin, Discover, Grow, Learn, and Serve. This sermon is filed under Begin: A Satisfying Faith.Click here if you would like to watch the sermon or read a transcript.Footnotes (Sources and References Used In Today's Podcast):I am indebted to Timothy Keller, Making Sense of God, for the reference to Peggy Lee's song, the story about the nursing home, and for reminding me of Thomas Nagel's philosophy and J. L. Mackie's ethics textbooks.For more on Nozick's experience machine and survey results, see this article by Joachim Krueger in Psychology Today.To watch the Warren-Flew debate, click here.Much of the material in the "Truth" section is taken from Os Guinness's speech "True Truth" (including comments about Peter Berger and G. K. Chesterton's illustration of how freedom requires truth).I'd love to connect with you!Watch sermons and find transcripts at nathanguy.com.Follow along each Sunday through YouTube livestream and find a study guide and even kids notes on the sermon notes page.Subscribe to my email newsletter on substack.

It is hard to explain through evolution how we know any necessary truths. Does this give us reason to abandon necessary truth? Nozick thinks so. Original Article: "Nozick on Morality and Evolution" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

It is hard to explain through evolution how we know any necessary truths. Does this give us reason to abandon necessary truth? Nozick thinks so. Original Article: "Nozick on Morality and Evolution" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

Alex speaks again with philosopher Eric Mack about "Anarchy, State and Utopia", this time touching on some of the challenges to Nozick's theory and Eric's own personal connection to Robert Nozick during his life.

Subscribe to the show: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google PodcastsWelcome to the very first bonus episode of (Re)Imagining Liberty. Today we're looking at Robert Nozick's classic work of libertarian philosophy, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Released in 1974, it's the book that put libertarianism on the map within contemporary academic philosophy. Nozick argued for a strong conception of rights and then traced out what that means for government, including whether rights allow for any government at all. Anarchy, State, and Utopia deserves its classic status and is a genuine delight to read. But that doesn't mean that its arguments are air tight or that it's the best defense of libertarianism. To help me (re)assess Nozick's book, I'm joined by professor Matthew McManus (@MattPolProf), author of The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism: Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture, and Reactionary Politics, and Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the Cato Institute.Whether you agree or disagree with Nozick's arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is a terrifically fun book to discuss. Support the show and get every episode two weeks early, as well as access to the Discord community. Sign up here: https://www.reimaginingliberty.com/subscribeProduced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte.Music: Finding the Balance by Kevin MacLeod | Link | License This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.reimaginingliberty.com/subscribe

Today we’re looking at Robert Nozick’s classic work of libertarian philosophy, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Released in 1974, it’s the book that put libertarianism on the map within contemporary academic philosophy. Nozick argued for a strong conception of rights and then traced out what that means for government, including whether rights allow for any government at all. Anarchy, State, and Utopia deserves its classic status and is a genuine delight to read. But that doesn’t mean that its arguments are air tight or that it’s the best defense of libertarianism. To help me (re)assess Nozick’s book, I’m joined by professor Matthew McManus (@MattPolProf), author of The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism: Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture, and Reactionary Politics, and Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Whether you agree or disagree with Nozick’s arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is a terrifically fun book to discuss. ReImagining Liberty is a project of The UnPopulist, and is produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Join the ReImagining Liberty Discord community and book club. Music: Finding the Balance by Kevin MacLeod | Link | License

Steve Hsu is a professor of theoretical physics and professor of computational mathematics, science, and engineering at Michigan State University, as well as the former VP of Research. He was the founder of digital security companies Safeweb, acquired by Symantec, and Robot Genius, as well as genomics startups Othram and Genomic Prediction. He writes the blog Information Processing. In this podcast, we discuss the history and politics of academia, individual differences in intelligence and athleticism, our experiences with high level mathematics, statistics as an anti-meme, the tension between merit and ideology, math education, theory of mind, differences between the Midwestern and immigrant suburb schools where Steve and I grew up, respectively, and informal networks as alternative credentials.Steve Hsu on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hsu_steveInformation Processing: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/On wordcels: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2022/02/annals-of-psychometry-wordcels-and.htmlBounded cognition (statistics and innumeracy): https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/10/bounded-cognition.htmlCreators and Rulers: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/08/creators-and-rulers.htmlQuantum GDP: https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2014/12/quantum-gdp.htmlTerman studies:Volume 1-3: https://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Studies-Genius-Vol-III/dp/B001LD3MKAVolume 4: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1947-15005-000Volume 5: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1959-07905-000Wordcels and Shape Rotators:https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/wordcel-shape-rotator-mathcelDeath's End, by Liu Cixin:https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0765377101?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_2&storeType=ebooksTimestamps:3:24 Interview Starts15:49 Cactus' Experience with High Math People19:49 High School Sports21:26 Comparison to Intelligence26:29 Is Lack of Understanding due to Denial or Ignorance?29:29 The Past and Present of Selection in Academia 37:02 How Universities Look from the Inside44:19 Informal Networks Replacing Credentials48:37 Capture of Research Positions50:24 Progressivism as Demagoguery Against the Self-Made55:31 Innumeracy is Common1:06:53 Understanding Innumerate People1:13:53 Skill Alignment at Cactus' High School1:18:12 Free Speech in Academia1:21:00 You Shouldn't Fire Exceptional People1:23:03 The Anti-Excellence Progressives1:28:42 Rawls, Nozick, and Technology1:34:00 Freedom = Variance = Inequality1:37:58 Dating Apps1:41:27 Jumping Into Social Problems From a Technical Background1:41:50 Steve's High School Pranks1:46:43 996 and Cactus' High School1:50:26 The Vietnam War and Social Change1:53:07 Are Podcasts the Future?1:59:37 The Power of New Things2:02:56 The Birth of Twitter2:07:27 Selection Creates Quality2:10:21 Incentives of University Departments2:16:29 Woke Bureaucrats2:27:59 Building a New University2:30:42 What needs more order?2:31:56 What needs more chaos? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cactus.substack.com

Panpsycast host Jack brings his promiscuous philosophy of mind to the show, wherein mind is here, there, and everywhere. But what does that mean? Skits about renting a flat for nefarious purposes and designing software for Nozick's experience machine reveal all! But the question remains... So what? You have to care! Mark philosophizes at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Bill improvises (and teaches) at chicagoimprovstudio.com. Hear more Philosophy vs. Improv. Support the podcast to get all our post-game discussions and other bonus stuff. Sponsor: Get 15% off premium earbuds at BuyRaycon.com/pvi.

Panpsycast host Jack brings his promiscuous philosophy of mind to the show, wherein mind is here, there, and everywhere. But what does that mean? Skits about renting a flat for nefarious purposes and designing software for Nozick's experience machine reveal all! But the question remains... So what? You have to care! Mark philosophizes at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Bill improvises (and teaches) at chicagoimprovstudio.com. Hear more Philosophy vs. Improv. Support the podcast to get all our post-game discussions and other bonus stuff. Sponsor: Get 15% off premium earbuds at BuyRaycon.com/pvi.

A deep dive into the philosophy of reparations with Olúfẹmi O. Táíwò. We cover the context & questions asked, Rawls, Nozick, arguments for equality, & harm repair vs constructivst accounts of reparations. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKq83FUsCIM&t=3365s

In this episode, both hedonism about wellbeing and Nozick's Experience Machine are discussed. There is an argument made against hedonism about well-being that is backed by the thought experiment put forth by Nozick. So, the Experience Machine serves to demonstrate that hedonism about wellbeing is false. Would you plug into the Experience Machine?

In this episode, left and right libertarianism is discussed. It is argued, with support of Nozick's “Anarchy, State, Utopia” that right libertarianism is the most plausible theory of justice. Entitlement Theory is analyzed as well as justice in transfer, acquisition, and rectification. Barbara Fried's critique of Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument is also presented.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Dismantling Hedonism-inspired Moral Realism, published by Lukas Gloor on January 27, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is the seventh post in my moral anti-realism sequence; it works well as a standalone piece. Outline Hedonism says that well-being consists of the felt quality of our experiences (Tännsjö, 1994). As a theory of value (an “axiology”), it says that positively and negatively valenced experiences make up what's morally good or bad for someone. Below, I'll introduce two motivations for hedonist axiology. I then explain why I disagree with the view that introspection about the goodness of pleasure (or badness of pain) gets us to moral realism. Finally, I conclude that people may endorse hedonism as their subjective value system (a personal choice) but not as objective morality. My counter-arguments aren't new. Robert Nozick's experience-machine thought experiment (Nozick, 1974) suggests that at least some of us seem to care terminally about things other than positive and negative experiences. While hedonists would say this is making a mistake, I don't find their counters convincing. I'll discuss below why I think the hedonists' arguments are flawed. They often seem based on (1) false consensus effects (“typical mind fallacy”), (2) a false reification of some intuitions about experiences, or (3) appeals to hedonism's simplicity that derive most of their force from “moral realism is true” as a question-begging premise. Two motivations for hedonism Following the naturalism vs. non-naturalism distinction in metaethics, I see two ways of justifying hedonist axiology. Hedonism via Objective Value First, one could seek to justify hedonism via the concept of Objective Value – a bedrock concept, i.e., an “irreducible” concept that we cannot identify with concepts from a different domain. (Unlike the way “chemical facts” can be reduced to facts about fundamental particles, or the way "economical facts" can be explained in terms of people's behavior and psychology, and so on. See my previous post, Why Realists and Anti-Realists Disagree, for a detailed discussion of bedrock concepts.) In her dissertation Normative Qualia and Robust Moral Realism (Hewitt, 2008, p. 325), Sharon Hewitt Rawlette explains Objective Value:[1] [W]e need to draw a clear distinction between the act or attitude of valuing and the having of objective value. Valuing is what people do; it's an activity or disposition which involves desiring something and approving of that desiring. [...] Having objective value, on the other hand, is an objectively normative property of an object, event, or state of affairs, such as a positive normative quale. In other words, something of Objective Value is valuable “in itself” and not only because we happen to value it. Specifically, Hewitt Rawlette argues that we can find Objective Value in the hedonic tone of some conscious experiences. She speaks of the “intrinsic normativity” of pain or pleasure, which we can recognize in our own experiences through introspection (p. 102). This sort of argument is common among proponents of hedonist axiology. For example, Neil Sinhababu (Sinhababu, 2010) speaks simply of pleasure's “goodness,” making essentially the same introspection-based argument: When looking at a lemon and considering the phenomenal states that are yellow experiences, one can form some beliefs about their intrinsic features – for example, that they're bright experiences. And when considering experiences of pleasure, one can make some judgments about their intrinsic features – for example, that they're good experiences. Just as one can look inward at one's experience of lemon yellow and recognize its brightness, one can look inward at one's experience of pleasure and recognize its goodness. Hedonism as the True Life Goal Secondly, someone could mo...

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Paul Bloom about the role that pain and suffering play in living a good life. They discuss the limitations of hedonism, the connection between chosen suffering and meaning, the research of Daniel Kahneman on well-being, integrating the experiencing and remembering selves, moral motivations, the effects of parenthood on happiness, unchosen suffering, the asymmetry of loss and gain, Nozick’s “experience machine” thought experiment, effective altruism, valuing the future more than the past, the power of contrast, false ideals of happiness, polyamory, money and status, the role of the imagination, boredom, the power of apology, and other topics. Paul Bloom is Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, and Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Yale University. Paul Bloom studies how children and adults make sense of the world, with special focus on pleasure, morality, religion, fiction, and art. He has won numerous awards for his research and teaching. He is past-president of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology, and co-editor of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. He has written for scientific journals such as Nature and Science, and for popular outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic Monthly. He is the author of six books, including his forthcoming, The Sweet Spot: The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search for Meaning. Website: https://paulbloom.net/ Twitter: @paulbloomatyale Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That’s why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life’s most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.

Keri and Tiger host from the car in a failed attempt to find a good Internet connection on the road. Carter remains out on leave. Guests Chrissie Mayr and Mike Harlow join, starting with their horror of Mark Zuckerburg and his Metaverse promotion, and the class where 99 of 100 students said they prefer to live in Nozick's Experience Machine for the rest of their life rather than reality. Next, they chat about the updated SyFy horror show character, Chucky, and Mikey reports on the ridiculous woke all-gay cast. Chrissie considers a comedy club's idea of an all no-Coof-jab show after the owner found out lots of people reject the concept of jab-only shows now common in NYC. Chrissie declines to represent the lone un-jabbed comedian for the event, instead proposing allowing whoever wants to go the the show to attend. They discuss Governor Cuomo being taken down by sexual harassment allegations, perhaps to avoid any need to take him down by his Coof nursing home actions. Then they point out the possibility of Fauci being fired over the puppy torture scandal, for the same reason--the Cathedral must avoid taking him down for his role in worldwide illness, as that requires admitting the government actions were a problem. Keri brings up Biden's proposal to use tax money to pay illegal immigrants for their “psychological damage” due to Trump's “family separation.” They wonder why there is no provision in the proposal for the psychological damage to American citizens for 18 months of Coof restrictions. About halfway through, Keri drops out of the show due to technical issues. Chrissie and Mikey have a frivolous chat, and Beverly joins in for the show closeout. The video version of this episode is available here: https://unsafespace.com/ep0663 Thanks for Watching! The best way to follow Unsafe Space, no matter which platforms ban us, is to visit: https://unsafespace.com While we're still allowed on YouTube, please don't forget to verify that you're subscribed, and to like and share this episode. You can find us there at: https://unsafespace.com/channel For episode clips, visit: https://unsafespace.com/clips Other video platforms on which our content can be found include: LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@unsafe BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/unsafespace/ Also, come join our community of dangerous thinkers at the following social media sites...at least until we get banned: Censorship-averse platforms: Gab: @unsafe Minds: @unsafe Locals: unsafespace.locals.com Parler: @unsafespace Telegram Chat: https://t.me/joinchat/H4OUclXTz4xwF9EapZekPg Censorship-happy platforms: Twitter: @_unsafespace Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unsafepage Instagram: @_unsafespace MeWe: https://mewe.com/p/unsafespace Support the content that you consume by visiting: https://unsafespace.com/donate Finally, don't forget to announce your status as a wrong-thinker with some Unsafe Space merch, available at: https://unsafespace.com/shop

This episode aims at questioning certain assumptions hidden behind the way we usually conceive happiness. Footnotes + Food for thought... Aristotle Thomas Hobbes Immanuel Kant Robert Nozick Joshua Greene Felipe De Brigard David Lykken, Auke Tellegen Hippocrates and the four humors Hosted by Jeanne Proust Produced & Scored by Johnny Nicholson Visuals by Pedro Gomes

This episode aims at questioning certain assumptions hidden behind the way we usually conceive happiness. Footnotes + Food for thought... Aristotle Thomas Hobbes Immanuel Kant Robert Nozick Joshua Greene Felipe De Brigard David Lykken, Auke Tellegen Hippocrates and the four humors Hosted by Jeanne Proust Produced & Scored by Johnny Nicholson Visuals by Pedro Gomes

The late Murray Rothbard has passionate fans and critics alike—but was he really the intransigent person his detractors portray? Was he prickly and difficult, or actually generous and helpful to students and colleagues? Did his reputation as an economist suffer for venturing into philosophy, ethics, history, sociology, and anarchism—even though Hayek did the same? Was Man, Economy, and State really just a rehash of Human Action? Did he deviate from Mises on method? Were Power & Market and the Ethics of Liberty just too radical and off-putting? Professor Patrick Newman considers critics like Arthur Burns, Kirzner, Leland Yeager, Nozick, Mario Rizzo, Selgin/White, Jason Brennan, Bryan Caplan, and of course Mises. If you like Rothbard you don't want to miss this show! Additional Resources In Defense of "Extreme Apriorism" by Murray Rothbard Conceived in Liberty, Volume V coming October 25 Join us for a celebration of Mises and his work in Los Angeles October 25–27. More info available here.

The late Murray Rothbard has passionate fans and critics alike—but was he really the intransigent person his detractors portray? Was he prickly and difficult, or actually generous and helpful to students and colleagues? Did his reputation as an economist suffer for venturing into philosophy, ethics, history, sociology, and anarchism—even though Hayek did the same? Was Man, Economy, and State really just a rehash of Human Action? Did he deviate from Mises on method? Were Power & Market and the Ethics of Liberty just too radical and off-putting? Professor Patrick Newman considers critics like Arthur Burns, Kirzner, Leland Yeager, Nozick, Mario Rizzo, Selgin/White, Jason Brennan, Bryan Caplan, and of course Mises. If you like Rothbard you don't want to miss this show! Additional Resources In Defense of "Extreme Apriorism" by Murray Rothbard Conceived in Liberty, Volume V coming October 25 Join us for a celebration of Mises and his work in Los Angeles October 25–27. More info available here.]]>