3 ms·
> My question is not terribly complex or dependent on unusual or unrealistic situations. No, usually the psychological arguments are needed to hand-wave away c
by throwaway729 10y ago
> My question is not terribly complex or dependent on unusual or unrealistic situations.
No, usually the psychological arguments are needed to hand-wave away crucial but obvious problems.
> Well, that's a big weakness of these theories
No, it's not. It's perhaps their most important insight.
I mean, IMO they're wrong, but the insight about the need for a psychological aspect is important and correct.
Libertarians and especially anarcho-capitalists need similar psychological arguments (the fact that they often hand-wave over this need not-withstanding).
- snrplfth 10y agoLet me clarify: I'm saying that the "well, your objections are just psychological" aspect is the weakness. Sure, to have a psychological theory is fine, but too often it drifts into essentially "objections to our theory are merely based in the same psychological malformation that is produced by the current system - therefore when we get rid of the system, the objections will go away too". This is a weakness, I think.
- throwaway729 10y agoAh, I see. Yes, I agree with you on that. Except maybe there's a system for which that's really true, and you and I prevent us from ever getting to that system because we reject arguments like this on the basis of form? Oh dear ;-)