background preloader

Political Philosophy

Facebook Twitter

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote - Trevor Timm. Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago. Everett Collection/Shutterstock Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

" Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood. In the last few years, the quote has reared its head on countless occasions. First, it's important to note U.S. v. The Myth of the Self-Made Person. By Peter Kaufman What do the alleged Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have in common with Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, J.K. Rowling, Jimi Hendrix, and Ben Franklin?

The answer: All of these individuals are said to have become who they are by their own individual means. Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are said to have been self-radicalized. Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, and J.K. The official term for those who are self-directed or self-taught learners is autodidacticism. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this concept of autodidactism. From a sociological standpoint, the answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO.

The notion of the self-made person is arguably the most anti-sociological sentiment that we hear about in a society that often fails to grasp the sociological imagination. The myth of the self-made person also rejects another foundational premise of sociology: interdependence. ZPrime comments on What is the scariest *real* organization in the world?

Nulla poena sine lege. Nulla poena sine lege (Latin: no penalty without a law) is a legal principle, requiring that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law. A description and analysis of the principle can be found in Shahram Dana, Beyond Retroactivity to Realizing Justice: The Principle of Legality in International Criminal Law Sentencing, 99 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 857 (2009) Requirements[edit] In modern European criminal law, e.g. of the Constitutional Court of Germany, the principle of nulla poena sine lege has been found to consist of four separate requirements:[1] Nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali There is to be no penalty without previous law.

Nulla poena sine lege scripta There is to be no penalty without written law. Nulla poena sine lege certa There is to be no penalty without definite law. Nulla poena sine lege stricta In common law[edit] Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea - Computerphile. SuddenlySnowden comments on We are Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald from the Oscar-winning documentary CITIZENFOUR. AUAA. This is a good question, and there are some good traditional answers here. Organizing is important. Activism is important. At the same time, we should remember that governments don't often reform themselves. One of the arguments in a book I read recently (Bruce Schneier, "Data and Goliath"), is that perfect enforcement of the law sounds like a good thing, but that may not always be the case. Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples.

Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had -- entirely within the law -- rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers? How does this relate to politics? How do we make that work for us? Our rights are not granted by governments.

Game Theory

Foot voting. Foot voting is the ability of people to "vote with their feet"[1] by leaving situations they do not like or going to situations they believe to be more beneficial. [citation needed] It has been described as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live".[2] Usage[edit] Communist leader Vladimir Lenin commented, "They voted with their feet," regarding Russian soldiers deserting the army of the Tsar.[3] The concept has been associated with Charles Tiebout[4] and Ronald Reagan.[5][not in citation given] See also[edit] References[edit]

What is a an effective way to counter the "drop in the bucket" argument? : TrueAskReddit. Global citizenship. In broad usage, the term global citizenship or world citizenship typically defines a person who places their identity with a "global community" above their identity as a citizen of a particular nation or place. The idea is that one’s identity transcends geography or political borders and that the planetary human community is interdependent and whole; humankind is essentially one.

The term has use in education and political philosophy and has enjoyed popular use in social movements such as the "World Citizen" movement and the Mondialisation movement. Definition[edit] The term "citizenship" refers to an identity between a person and a city, state or nation and their right to work, live and participate politically in a particular geographic area. When combined with the term "global", it typically defines a person who places their identity with a "global community" above their identity as a citizen of a particular nation or place.

Usage[edit] Education[edit] Global citizenship education[edit] Why the UK Election Results are the Worst in History. 5 Ways Powerful People Trick You Into Hating Underdogs. Let's say that tomorrow you are elected Secret Ruler of the USA, a position that gives you total power over the government, economy, and the culture at large -- everything that hippies refer to as "the system. " Now, your first job is to not get beheaded by rioting peasants, which means your first job is really to maintain "stability" (i.e., "keeping things mostly the way they are"). Immediately you'll find that you're facing a never-ending stream of protests from disgruntled groups who say they're being treated unfairly or otherwise getting left out -- this group over here is upset that somebody got abused by the police; this other bunch is demanding better wages or something.

How do you handle it? Sure, you could crush their movements with an iron fist, using violence to kill, intimidate or arrest their most vocal members. But that can backfire, often turning them into martyrs and proving them right in the process -- you've seen Star Wars; somebody always finds the exhaust port. The Most Complex Borders in Europe: Why Do We Have Nations? TED Talks - What FACEBOOK And GOOGLE Are Hiding From The World - The Filter Bubble. Voting Methods. 1. The Problem: Who Should be Elected? The central question of this article is: Given a group of people faced with some decision, how should a central authority combine the individual opinions so as to best reflect the “will of the group”?

A complete analysis of this question would incorporate a number of different issues ranging from central topics in political philosophy (e.g., how should we define the “will” of the people? I start with a concrete example to illustrate the type of analysis surveyed in this article. For this example, assume that each of the voters has one of four possible rankings of the candidates. Read the table as follows: Each column represents a ranking in which candidates in lower rows are ranked lower. One candidate who, at first sight, seems to be a good choice to win the election is candidate A. Of course, 13 people rank A last, so a much larger group of voters will be unsatisfied with the election of A. Candidate C should win. Candidate B should win. 2. 3. 4. Ethnic Tension And Meaningless Arguments. Part of what bothers me – and apparently several others – about yesterday’s motte-and-bailey discussion is that here’s a fallacy – a pretty successful fallacy – that depends entirely on people not being entirely clear on what they’re arguing about.

Somebody says God doesn’t exist. Another person objects that God is just a name for the order and beauty in the universe. Then this somehow helps defend the position that God is a supernatural creator being. How does that even happen? “Sir, you’ve been accused of murdering your wife. We have three witnesses who said you did it. What do you have to say for yourself?” “Well, your honor, I think it’s quite clear I didn’t murder the President. “Huh. While motte-and-bailey is less subtle, it seems to require a similar sort of misdirection. When everything works the way it’s supposed to in philosophy textbooks, arguments are supposed to go one of a couple of ways: 1. 2.

If you are very lucky, your philosophy textbook will also admit the existence of: 5 Brainwashing Tricks That Work No Matter How Smart You Are. #2. Everyone Has the Same Moral Code, They Just Use It Differently Win McNamee/Getty Images News/Getty Images Question: Do you consider yourself morally superior to the people who used to burn witches (and in fact, still do)? I would certainly hope so -- these people are kidnapping innocent men and women and executing them based on a ridiculous superstition. Johann Jakob Wick"Well done, not medium. But what if, in some surprising turn of events, it turned out that witches were not only real, but that everything said about them was true*?

This, then, is where you realize that you're not necessarily more tolerant than the witch hunters -- you just don't share their belief in witches. *The above example was stolen wholesale from C.S. Now look at pretty much every single political debate. Now, in order to preserve the good vs. evil narrative, here is where we say that the other side is simply lying about what they believe. . #1. Photodisc/Photodisc/Getty Images They're all white. 7 Illegal Things To Do In A British Election. Politics in the Animal Kingdom — CGP Grey. Part I: the Problems with First Past the Post Voting Part II: The Alternative Vote Part IV: Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Part V: Single Transferable Vote.

Liquid Democracy | Global Freedom Movement. Illustration of how Liquid Democracy Works via Wikipedia Liquid democracy is a group-decision-making method that works as a sort of “direct democracy for people who know they’re not experts on a subject, but know of people that they trust who who know more about a subject than themselves”. Questions are settled by asking everyone… but many people’s answer will be “whatever X says”. It works by enabling people to solicit recommendations on how to vote from people they trust. So, people who know nothing about foreign policy can get vote recommendations on a subject from people who agree with the basic thrust of similar values and who either have a personal connection with pundits or experts on a given subject who also agree with the attitude, or who are experts in their own right.

In fact, one of the original influences on Liquid Democracy was the desire to replace the chain of command in a military situation with something more efficient and flexible. What Does Liquid Democracy Mean? Politics in the Animal Kingdom: Single Transferable Vote. Money & Debt: Crash Course World History 202. homepage materials/Gilens and Page/Gilens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf.

The_Old_Gentleman comments on Anarcho-"Capitalism," as described by a mutualist's comment in /r/anarcho-capitalism. Thoughts? Parable of the broken window. The parable of the broken window was introduced by Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen) to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society. The parable, also known as the broken window fallacy or glazier's fallacy, seeks to show how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are "unseen" or ignored.

The parable[edit] Bastiat's original parable of the broken window from Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (1850): Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? Differing interpretations[edit] Bastiat's argument[edit] Austrian School theorists, and Bastiat himself, apply the parable of the broken window in a different way. The opportunity cost of war[edit] According to Hazlitt: Criticisms[edit] The 10 Most Important Theories About Why We Make War. I'm very disappointed, though not surprised, at this analysis. I don't fault the author, but rather the inherent bias of the academic fields involved. Most of these items help explain how people are exploited in order to support war, but none offer the main motivation for war: the health of the state.

Government is not somehow the pooling of community resources for the common good under the supervision of society's best and brightest. This is worthless propaganda of the same sort as war propaganda itself, and is well explained by the points listed in the article. Politics is an arrangement by which the most ruthless and violent factions in a socio-cultural environment consolidate their power and violence to gain beneficial economic advantages. Malthusian pressure has nothing to do with war as a direct cause. And, to finish the thought, if there was true Malthusian pressure that social and technological innovation couldn't solve, then the result would be migration.

I Like The Big Bang Theory, Because Communism. Enjo13 comments on Another moment of real clarity in the fiscal debate "Obama manages to demonstrate once again that there is literally nothing he could offer Republicans -- even things they themselves have said they want -- to induce them to compromise." The bitter tears of the American Christian supermajority. The most persecuted minority in the United States is not Muslims, African-Americans or immigrants. It’s our Christian supermajority that’s truly oppressed. Verily, consider three anecdotes from the past few weeks. On March 2, three Baptist ministers in Akron, Ohio, arranged for the local police to mock-arrest them in their churches and haul them away in handcuffs for the simple act of preaching their faith.

A video was posted on YouTube to drum up buzz for an upcoming revival show. On Feb. 26, Arizona’s conservative Gov. And the feature film “Persecuted,” a political thriller about a federal government plan to censor Christianity in the name of liberalism, is due out in May. Needless to say (or maybe not) this news ticker of persecuted American Christians floats far and free from reality. To be sure, there are Christians in the world who face persecution, from Copts in Egypt to Catholics in northern Nigeria. What accounts for this orgy of self-pity?

How far back in history do you have to go before it's considered archaeology instead of grave robbing? : Showerthoughts. GOD_Over_Djinn comments on New spin on an old question: Is the university economics curriculum too far removed from economic concerns of the real world? Degrees of Clarity - Utilitarianism and the Transplant Surgeon Objection.

Guide to Philosophy on the Internet (Suber)