Holy shit, he compared Rawls's a theory of justice argument to the sexual marketplace (and the hypocrisy of society thinking one thing about money, the other about the redistribution of sex). Redpilled as fjcwkw
Which of Rawls' arguments are you talking about? He makes many arguments in his book of that title, the main one being in favor of the difference principle. Is that the one you mean?
Money determines way of life though sex is not materialistic
>>1114675
What's the fuss over this guy? Literally nothing I watched of him indicated to me that he had anything more than a rudimentary knowledge about the things he talks about.
Post his best video.
>>1114782
He's a pleb who sucks in other plebs with sophistry and forceful delivery.
>>1114714
>figurative
what did he mean by this
>>1114688
More or less this, plus there's a difference of degree in the harm/good done by redistribution.
Giving the destitute a little money could very well help them greatly, while taking that from the wealthy would barely affect them; $10 is worth more to a hobo than $1000 to Bill Gates. Sexual redistribution, on the other hand, inevitably requires a substantial crackdown on the freedoms of some for relatively little benefit to others; you don't need sex to live in the way you need food to. And this doesn't get into what usually accompanies "redistribution" of sex.
The reasoning behind being more redistributive of money than of sex is the same reason we have food stamps but not free boats.
>>sexual redistribution
Bwuh? Sounds like stupid commie garbage. Just legalize prostitution instead, the rest will fall into place.
>>1115681
He uses it as an argument against wealth redistribution, trying to discredit the latter notion on moralistic grounds through reductio ad absurdum.
We need a rule against clickbait.
Does he not understand the immense psychological and emotion and instinctual and biological and cultural (not mention spiritual) differences between money and sex?
/r9k/ thread?
>>1115696
this isn't an original idea, stop jerking off over him
>>1115696
Well at least he's not mouthing libertarian-lite economics while advocating a sexual cartel.
While we're on the topic, this is one of the points of failure that led to the manosphere being subsumed into the alt-right; it was vaguely free-market/libertarian like how activist feminists are vaguely left-wing economically, but it frequently argued for male economic dominance so women would be effectively forced to marry to survive, which is unambiguously a cartel in effect (Daniel Amneus, a "founding father" of the movement, is a prominent example). This is an obvious contradiction, of course, so the only resolution is either scaling back and just going after AA and the like, or giving up any libertarian pretensions.
>>1114675
Go to bed Stefan, you've been shilling yourself non-stop the last couple of weeks. I saw literally the exact same thread at the same time on /his/ and /lit/, and a very similar one on /int/. I've seen your bullshit on /biz/ and I don't go to /pol/ but I assume it's there too. It's literally pathetic, you're a middle aged man. Grow the fuck up.
everyone remember to sage
