LOL in general. I think some people here are really a parody of themselves and a parody of so called market fundamentalism.
The thing is, the ‘market’ doesn’t get to define the nature of things. The market is the most efficient system to manufacture cell phones but the market doesn’t define what a cell phone is. That’s also true with respect to justice – the market does not define what justice is.
It’s highly ironic that people who claim to be against democracy are advocating another variety of mob rule and gang warfare.
You’re missing the point. The philosophical question of what justice is may well be very interesting, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter. Because insurance companies won’t be inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas or whoever else. Rather, they’ll be interest in profit, which is exactly why they’ll provide the “justice” that makes them the most money. So whilst that most likely won’t be the “justice” that philosophical investigation leads us to, it will be the only justice that matters.
As for your cell phone analogy it’s false. A better analogy would be that there exist numerous ideas about the perfect cell phone, companies won’t strive to produce that one though, they’ll produce the one that will make them the most money. Now, apply this to justice.
Well, so you are a right wing totalitarian who disagrees with left wing totalitarians. Following your market based model of ‘subjective justice’ you may find yourself engaging in some sort of war with ‘cultural marxist’ – have fun.
I personally think that the morally right thing to do is to not indoctrinate children. Btw, I don’t know what you precisely mean by cultural marxism. However, I do know that revealed religion is just lies.
Another scenario : religious nuts believe that, following the holy bible, gays should be stoned to death. Some other people may disagree. So, what’s next ? Will PDA X defend the “right to stoning” of religious madmen ? If the nutcases can pay enough they can have their ‘laws’ enforced ?
That is a very real risk. No one is saying it is preferable or desirable, but it is completely naive to think that the person who can hire the most enforcers and more weapons, absolutely will not direct them in an unethical manner.
You seem to have fun setting up strawmen and posting ad homs. It doesn’t matter, this childish behaviour and silly little revolt against authority is indicative of leftists, so I’m not suprised. War with cultural marxists? Not likely, that’s expensive, they’ll just be outcompeted.
Indoctrinate? Here’s the thing Juan, you can use newspeak for things you don’t like but it doesn’t change the fact that potentially anything you tell your children will have an effect on them. So whilst I may end up “indoctrinating” my children about religion, the leftists will be “indoctrinating” their children that it’s ok to do drugs.
And do you really know that revealed religion is lies? Funny, I thought you claimed to be agnostic, no?
Even if I did so what? Because I’m interested in philosophy doesn’t mean everybody else is. Unless you buy the Trotskyite notion of everybody becoming a Goethe once the state has been abolished I don’t see why you think philosophy would become would prevelant. It wouldn’t, in fact, the state subsidizes “professional” philosophers, so it might well go the other way.
If you don’t think it is then I guess that’s too bad for you, since this is the result of abolishing the state. Not your utopian visions of Aristotle running insurance companies or the production of defense being inspired by Rational Man or The Libertarian Idea.
What I meant to say is that they won’t be run by philosophers, or even be philosophically inclined.
It’s not circular to claim that there will be demand for what most people perceive to be just, and somebody will meet this demand. This is despite the fact that philosophy may tell us that justice is not what is being demanded.
I’ve never said that, all I’ve said is that it’s that view of justice that counts, even if philosophy tells us that concept of justice is wrong.
No, it isn’t.
And? How does this concern the analogy? It’s not relevant. What’s relevant is that what is ideal isn’t what will be demanded.
I do not judge an idea by its origin. To do so would be a genetic fallacy. I believe that philosophy will be more important because people can no longer defer to “the law” or “the courts” as being the final arbiter of justice. Toto will have revealed the Wizard as a mortal man.
The state subsidizes philosophers for the same reason it subsidizes economists. The results are predictable in both cases. With few exceptions, philosophers and economists subsidized by the state justify the existence of the state.
Yes, just not necessarily the correct view of justice. Although this is quickly turning into an argument over semantics, if it does I’m not going to bother carrying on.
My point is that it is this view of justice that counts, not Aristotles.