Political theorists and philosophers

[Vouthon]

Oddly enough (and I'm not sure whether this says something particularly odd about me, or about our electoral system), the last election is the only time I have voted Labour at a general election: not that it was ever going to make any difference where I live, but the candidate was a research scientist who had spoken out against his own party in things like Prof. Nutt's dismissal - I may not agree with his party, but I thought the candidate was excellent.

Actually, props to you for voting on a local issue even if the wider national party politics didn't pull you in any clear direction I've flirted with many different parties, both big and smaller. The exception to this is the SNP. I have never been under any illusions about them. Salmond is a very forceful character. He is adroit at judging his opponents and is a very experienced political operator with some natural charm. Had he decided to go to Westminster rather than join the Nationalists, I reckon he'd have gone pretty far.

I think he's an empty suit, however. Calculating but vacuous. He also keeps making some very disconcerting remarks. For example he once spoke about Scottish Independence being willed "by providence" as part of the country's "manifest destiny"

I truly hope that your assessment of him is correct. The media is overwhelmingly against him and he has made cardinal mistakes (well mostly his deputies. Nicola Sturgeon has flopped at various debates. She just ends up getting personal at her opponents and averting their gaze as if she really doesn't have good answers for them).

It is a very emotional debate. What could be more emotive than a people's own self-identity? Yes, its led to a lack of ability to genuinely listen to the other side and its arguments. I think many, including myself, have fallen into that trap from time to time.

The idea of living in an independent, nationalist Scotland in the midst of a globalizing world just makes me feel sick

If 2014 is the "RIP" year for the 1707 Union, then it'll be one of the saddest days of my existence.

 

[philbo]

Technically, not so much a local issue as an intellectual one: we have precious few people in parliament capable of understanding any kind of statistical evidence, with any kind of understanding of what it means to test an idea before implementing it nationally: even when there have been pilot studies, most have been so poorly-designed that they have no chance of showing any useful effect, and policies are usually implemented before any results come back, anyway.

I don't know if Salmond will trip himself up in the run-up to the referendum; there's still quite a bit of a pig-in-a-poke, voting without knowing, say, the split of revenues from oil, that sort of thing. It sounds to me that he's being hugely optimistic in the figures he's quoting.. I guess we'll see. Given the influence of Scotsmen on the UK parliament, I'm surprised he wants to give all that up

 

[dust1n]

Bakunin, Proudhon, Debord, Rousseau, Kropotkin.

There are two volumes edited by Michael Curtis, that pretty much quote various philosophers from all the time periods up until like.. relatively modern times. It doesn't cover everything, but it's a nice go-to.

 

[Mart30000]

Many come to mind: G.A. Cohen (a Marxist, author of Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality); John Rawls (liberal, A Theory of Justice); Thomas Nagel (Equality and Partiality); Ronald Dworkin (Justice for Hedgehogs); David Gauthier (Morals by Agreement); T.M. Scanlon (What We Owe to Each Other); Robert Nozick (a libertarian, Anarchy, State, and Utopia); Roger Scruton (a conservative, Meaning Of Conservatism).

They will give a general taste of contemporary political philosophy. With the exception of Nozick and Scruton, they typically defend egalitarian ideas. Nozick's book partly argues against Rawls specifically, and also argues against libertarian anarchist thinkers. Rawls might be the most well-known of the bunch. Scruton might be the least well known. Cohen's Why Not Socialism?, a teacher tells me, is not his best work despite its popularity. So if you read him, look at this other books first. There you will see his "smarts."