I always find it kinda funny when the right turns to Adam Smith. Smith thought that the free market would free us from the monopolistic tendencies of the mercantile system. (Although he wouldn't have written it as such, as the term 'monopoly' wasn't nearly as taxonomically precise as it is now.) If he was alive today, he'd probably be rather dismayed at the failures of capitalism.

But then again, I guess that's the right's shtick: coopt any idea that they can and pervert it to benefit the ultra-wealthy.

Anyways, here's Smith:

The object, besides, of the greater part of the bye-laws of all regulated companies, as well as of all other corporations, is not so much to oppress those who are already members, as to discourage others from becoming so; which may be done, not only by a high fine, but by many other contrivances. The constant view of such companies is always to raise the rate of their own profit as high as they can; to keep the market, both for the goods which they export, and for those which they import, as much understocked as they can: which can be done only by restraining the competition, or by discouraging new adventurers from entering into the trade. (The Wealth of Nations V.i.e.10)

[–] kugel7c@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

It would be funny if it weren't so sad. As much as reading and understanding smith and other philosophy is important for the individual, think tanks unfortunately seem necessary in a modern context aiming to transform, often quite unreadable, as your excerpt demonstrates, philosophical learning, into applicable law/policy.

As with everything this process is utterly captured by right wing and market fundamentalist interests. Just sort this list by Bias/Affiliation and skim some of the descriptions it's a bit horrific, but it also might save you from reading an old school stochastic parrot with an inhumane agenda. Or if you actually find one you can agree with it might give you a reasonable first source.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lol yeah, it's definitely the "funny-because-that's-how-I-cope-with-the-absurdity" funny, not the "I'm-actually-having-fun" funny.

Here's my Luke warm take: It's kinda a self fulfilling prophecy that think tanks are so "necessary". They prop up modern thought because our education is so filled with practicality and specialization that there's not enough time for proper philosophical education, which every person should be offered. And further, that is by design to maintain the status quo.

You certainly don't get much hat tipping to the early greats, many of whom said in some form or other that the study of philosophy was one of the most important pursuits a person can have in order to live a good life and build a healthy society.

Warm take, because the corpus of human philosophy really is insanely massive, and realistically we do in fact need food and doctors and house builders and whatnot, and there's too little time and too much to be done for everyone to get a B.A. equivalent in philosophy. Probably. Maybe a think tank has studied the idea.

[–] kugel7c@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah this whole thing a bit maximized might be neatly wrapped up in this Hegelian insight rephrased in 2014 found on the wiki

"It is Hegel's insight that reason itself has a history, that what counts as reason is the result of a development. This is something that Kant never imagines and that Herder only glimpses."

In this way if not even the greats can do it how could a modern person or a think tank but at the same time does this not imply we currently need all three of them.

Also is the modern YouTube video essay channel sort of a think tank for terminally online people ? Maybe food for thought, maybe a joke who knows really.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)