Philosophy & Politics - Ronald Dworkin & Bryan Magee (1977)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มี.ค. 2022
- In this program, Ronald Dworkin discusses political philosophy with Bryan Magee. The focus is mainly on John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" and Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", and then Dworkin's own work in political theory. This is from a 1977 series on Modern Philosophy called Men of Ideas.
#Philosophy #PoliticalPhilosophy #BryanMagee
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] Tứ Xuyên (Trung Quốc) VS U20 Thái Lan | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024 | JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bguJ41PcW0c/mqdefault.jpg)
Its a joy to listen to Ronald Dworkin here!
Glasses size inversely proportional to eye size.
@@Frohicky1 Stylish
Prof. Dworkin must be the most articulate guest I've yet seen on this show. He has exactly the type of clear, concise, and above all engaging style of speech that is needed of a great professor.
Eooo it oorqtooootqeoootwot🎉the 😢to get 🎊 tools twtq🎉twoooeototqoo🎉eosinophils 😮😂e😅wt😂tq your wtwt🎉of tw🎉owttq😂will eooqootoo🎉to ooooqotow🎉oooooooot😂🎉top poo 🎉🎊 was ioeooooooot🎉opoowooow ooo😮otooooo ooooooooootooeooooe🎉oriepooo eiooooeeoeopw oowho who too🎉😢😂😮🎉😂oe🎉was o🎉eooooooooootwoeoooqtoooooo🎉🎉woto oeoooooo😂oooopoootqoooo🎉ever ooook my 🎉post oo 2:03 ooeoootwotwoootoooooeo❤even 🎉eoo😅😂with orange oooooooo🍊 a baby doll moment in 🎉too😂tou is 🎉twooo🎉wooo oooooooeooowtois owo🎉people have already made a eo tbut oooootwotwtorooo
First off - I really liked the talk. Very thought provoking.
I would also like to know who, on the far left, holds the position described at 22:00, that equality is preferable, even if everyone is worse off.
I have never seen someone seriously defend this position. Mostly it's people defending equity above all, not equality but being misconstrued.
And also I would've liked a clear distinction between the concept of liberalism as a social idea and liberalism as an economic principle, because most leftits are for social liberalism but against the economic principle.
Thanks for the upload! Brilliant video
Professor Dworkin is widely celebrated Exponent of modern Natural School of Jurisprudence
Fantastic video!
One day videos like this will have millions of views :)
The eternal optimist. Love it.
These eyeglasses man... gotta love them.
YEEAAAAHHHH BABYYYYYY!!!!
Nozick's theory as expounded at -15:00 has been put to the test in a real world scenario by the Harvard Boys in Russia under Yeltsin. The chief agents of accumulation weren't talent but raw power and crime.
I'll suffer this to the end for pedantic reasons.
Actually, the best example is Chile and, more recently, Iraq. The problems in Russia were much greater and there were other players. It was shock therapy but when Jeffrey Sacks noticed the treatment was killing the patient and went for help to the IMF he found out the neo-cons (Wolfowitz and CHeney at the time) had blocked the IMF from helping. 1990s Russia was such a catatostrophe it made something I considered impossible: an economist to go from neo-liberal to keynesian. That economist is Jeffrey Sachs. (Wolfowitz and Cheney decided that the oportunity to make the US the only great power from then on and created the Plan for a New American Century. They not only managed to kill millions but also saved the industrial-military complex. They continue to kill and keep the money flowing into the defense industry, btw. From 1991 to 2001, there were an estimated 2.5 to 3 million excess deaths in the adult population of Russia. Studies on all the former Soviet republics estimate ne number between 3 and 7 million. It's harder to estimate because quality of data deteriorated quickly)
@@maxheadrom3088 yeah the raw power and organized crime (or at least organized ignoring crimes) was already there. The influx of neoliberalism/access to and from the west just helped that power consolidate and created oligarchs
3 million Russians died of deprivation under that delightful free market regime.
Is there any more interviews with Dworkin?
Do programs like this exist in any form these days outside of the odd Joe Rogan interview, which, while entertaining and sometimes informative, never reaches the intellectual rigor and depth that a discussion like this does?
Within reason - alex O’Connor
"...the distribution of milk to schoolchildren for example" The Awful Ghost of Thatcher came to mind with that comment
The unintentional vegan heroine
I think Dworkin liked to go to Disco parties
Yes. Studio 54. High Horse. Moon and Spoon.
Seems to me liberalism is in only greater need of solving the problems mentioned at the end. If the solutions have been posited, they need more publicity, because faith in liberalism is as low as its ever been.
Liberalism needs to expand imagination? Imagine if these analytic philosophers were communicating wholeheartedly wotb continental philosophers who have so much more interesting to say.
Rick moranis is super smart
"Comepting rights", something entirely absent in the minds of libertarians.
But the opposite to competing rights is a prospect of the total state. So the solution is in recourse to indirect and productive realm in which the possible and always possible competition can be made into a win-win. Competition is a fundamental of cooperation but that of rights is in itself a very unslovable question. You cannot create an absolute equality of opportunity because it will only make the state as total, nothing less.
@@mirzaadil4696 I don't mean to be disrespectful, but your drafting is so messy I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.
And human rights types, depending on the day.
Love is the Law. There are no competing rights once morality is thoroughly understood. See everyone as yourself, and problems like that are revealed to be fictions. But you ain't gonna see it until your head and heart are actualized and working together.
@@bbblackwell Not likely. Real life gets in the way, and in it several moral concerns clash with eachother constantly. However you choose to address those scenarios, you necessarily leave something out and prioritize something else which presupposes a standard from which you judge them... which in turn will always be subject to dispute.
Ronald Dworkin built his theory of law arguing that the best conception of equality would be, in his view, liberal equality. As a theory of distributive justice, he argued in favor of the so-called "equality of resources", a concept that advocates that economic inequality can only be tolerated if and only if this is capable of benefiting the least favored social group in society.
Dvorkin's theory of law is dead. It was murdered by the paradoxical union between authoritarian neoliberal politicians and the new ideologues of neoliberalism (defenders of extreme liberalism, the total predominance of the market over the State, the absolute valorization of income concentration and the prohibition of any type of social justice), and the evangelical fanatics whose ideology is a toxic mix of conservatism, individualism, a feudal monopoly on the right to mediate contact between divinity and the faithful and a certain predilection for racism and neo-fascism. The space in which modern law was created and justice could be distributive began to cease to exist at the moment when evangelical pastors began to defend slavery and the physical extermination of Palestinians and Arabs and this was not repressed by the State.
Dvorkin was a theorist of legal liberalism. Nothing he defended can prevail in a world dominated by authoritarian legal neoliberalism empowered by Christian fanaticism.
The most eloquent proof of the death of this jurist's theory of law is the police repression that is taking place in England and Germany against peaceful demonstrations in favor of the ceasefire in Gaza. The BBC refused to broadcast the argument in the International Court of Justice by South African lawyers and broadcast Israel's defense live, as if equality and justice depended on silencing one party. Germany said it will join the case in defense of Israelis and against victims of the genocide.
But a clear example that Dvorkin's theory of law is dead was given by Israel's lawyer at the International Court of Justice. Not only did he refuse to debate the evidence of genocidal intentions and acts provided by South Africa, he mocked any concept of justice by saying that the victim of genocide is the State that exterminated thousands of innocent children without their cities being severely bombed and destroyed.
Nozick was right... Dworkin and Rawls needed more reading....
He didn't really add anything to Nozick's argument.
Nozick isn't saying that the least off in society wouldn't he helped in his system.
Dworkin makes that assumption and uses it to write a book
He doesn't understand what general welfare means from the sounds of it.
Atleast not in the American sense... aka the liberal sense.
He says we should shoot down egalitarianism... then he promotes it.
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” - Thomas Jefferson
"With respect to the two words "general welfare,‟ I have always
regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis
of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was
not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, “Father of the
Constitution”
"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare." ".... I venture to declare it as my opinion, that were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America: and what inferences might be drawn or what consequences ensue form such a step, it is incumbent on us all well to consider."
James Madison addressed it again in an 1830 letter to Andrew Stevenson.
Thomas Jefferson sided with Madison. "To lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
If you attempt to help the "general welfare" of others... you by definition need to take from someone else to give to them....
So you're trampling on the rights of other citizens when you go beyond the Night Watchman state which Nozick described...
Even if you believe that there should be minimal trampling of rights to create an optimal society... this would not expand beyond Public Goods.... as in police, courts, school vouchers, and defense.
Too many don't understand that "Public Goods" has a definition so they attempt to put whatever they want on the phrase to make it meet their needs... when in reality it's a specific economic term for goods which are non-excludable and non-rival (ie. Asteroid defense)
You insist in an originalist view, cherry-picking quotes to suit your argument. You finish by inserting “school vouchers” (a concept unheard of in 1776-or 1830) instead of “basic public education”. Neither you, nor the people in the video, address how we should address equality and justice in the face of the dual sins upon which the USA was founded: white supremacy and misogyny (the view that half the human race (women) are not equal politically, economically, or socially based on a Napoleonic system of gender discrimination.
@@DorothyPotterSnyder Is there not a difference between removing barriers and seeking to shape outcomes?
@@DorothyPotterSnyder Because what they address in the video presupposes the idea that all humans are rational and so deserving of rights. They're not talking about the mechanism by which the United States could adapt they're views, they're discussing something much more theoretical: 'what is the ideal society?' As liberals they're all heavily indebted to JS Mill, who even in the early 19th century advocated for the equal rights of women, and so they've long since accepted the notion that in an ideal society women shouldn't have any fewer rights.
THE RIGHT TO DIE.
I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNEMNT IN EDUCATION AND I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO SPONSOR ANYTHING. AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE EITHER.
PEOPLE VALUE LIFE TOO MUCH.
AS IF IT WERE FINITE OR IMPORTANT SOMEHOW.