Kreisler correctly notes that Pettit's conception of individual freedom leaves open the door for some justification of redistribution. It can be used, I think, to insist on the procurement of opportunities for social mobility, but it would not do it in a stupid way by offering a carte blanche to the State -- you cannot replace on form of dominance by another. Although this interview is old, I wish Pettit was speaking with someone from the political right today. One of the big grievances I hear today concerns censorship on social media where a handful of businesses respond to the demands of a small, intransigent minority to silence ordinary citizens as well as public figures. To be fair, the censorship does extend to some people on the left as well -- e.g., Glenn Greenwald was basically victim of a coup at his own news outlet -- so while you can doubt the part about the right being ideologically targetted more than the left, it is undeniable that a handful of powerful actors have cornered a lot of the public space and they get to impose their preferences on everyone involved. Conservatives are outraged -- but they do not always have the words to explain that sentiment. I know a lot of people will respond by siding with their political tribe by just denying the whole thing point blank, or by saying it's justified, but all I see here is a point where the river is narrow enough that you could build a bridge.
Good to read your comment. I went chasing the political changes particularly in this 2020 brackett referrence and have not found anything but have lodged a thought thrown in the direction of Prof. Philip Pettit. I'll be waiting hopefully for something you can get you teeth into.
What happens when citizens prefer a kind master over individual responsibility? Where should the line be drawn for social welfare and suboptimal incentives
I recently read his book: Just Freedom. He is certainly a knowledge man, but his analysis makes no point of comparing a vertically structured society to a horizontally structured one. Of course, that’s because his focus is totally upon Europeans and their offshoots in the Americas. Additionally, because of that, this trajectory is useless. Moreover, his mention of the so-called “American Revolution” totally leaves out the fact that what would become the USA was built and still functions on depriving hundreds of millions of people, through slavery and still capitalism, of non-dominating freedom.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.922 | 10 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zmV5HRIxIBI/mqdefault.jpg)
Kreisler correctly notes that Pettit's conception of individual freedom leaves open the door for some justification of redistribution. It can be used, I think, to insist on the procurement of opportunities for social mobility, but it would not do it in a stupid way by offering a carte blanche to the State -- you cannot replace on form of dominance by another.
Although this interview is old, I wish Pettit was speaking with someone from the political right today. One of the big grievances I hear today concerns censorship on social media where a handful of businesses respond to the demands of a small, intransigent minority to silence ordinary citizens as well as public figures. To be fair, the censorship does extend to some people on the left as well -- e.g., Glenn Greenwald was basically victim of a coup at his own news outlet -- so while you can doubt the part about the right being ideologically targetted more than the left, it is undeniable that a handful of powerful actors have cornered a lot of the public space and they get to impose their preferences on everyone involved. Conservatives are outraged -- but they do not always have the words to explain that sentiment.
I know a lot of people will respond by siding with their political tribe by just denying the whole thing point blank, or by saying it's justified, but all I see here is a point where the river is narrow enough that you could build a bridge.
Good to read your comment. I went chasing the political changes particularly in this 2020 brackett referrence and have not found anything but have lodged a thought thrown in the direction of Prof. Philip Pettit. I'll be waiting hopefully for something you can get you teeth into.
Couldn't agree with you more about the need for Unions.
7:50 qué se necesita para ser filósofo? Obsesión
53:38 Zapatero. Filosofía
The walk advertisement played before this video
What happens when citizens prefer a kind master over individual responsibility? Where should the line be drawn for social welfare and suboptimal incentives
obsession, that's the feeling!
A feeling of non-freedom? - imprisonment.
I recently read his book: Just Freedom. He is certainly a knowledge man, but his analysis makes no point of comparing a vertically structured society to a horizontally structured one. Of course, that’s because his focus is totally upon Europeans and their offshoots in the Americas. Additionally, because of that, this trajectory is useless. Moreover, his mention of the so-called “American Revolution” totally leaves out the fact that what would become the USA was built and still functions on depriving hundreds of millions of people, through slavery and still capitalism, of non-dominating freedom.
How are any of those necessary conditions to the constitution and free markets, rather than reflections of corruption and loss of civic virtue?
So he lost his Faith to embrace Marxism? Not a good swap.