Law forum

Also one for economics would be great. These two fields are becoming increasingly interesting for philosophy, because the establishment of collective morals is falling away in the west and the axioms of law and economics are being compromised. In short there’s work to do and for that I think we need a more specific ream than social sciences.

Of neither economics nor law I have much knowledge, but I have ideas and I have to test them to people who are knowledgeable, who have degrees in it, who are professionals… maybe we could draw interesting lawyers and economists to this place… It would not be a bad thing to have such people close to the metaphysical and aesthetic philosophy that is going on here. If any, it be these two domains that may shed some light on what is often referred to as conspiracy. The intricacies of power.

I have read a bit of Montesquieu, and I found him to be extremely lucid, a sort of practical Spinoza. This practicality makes him smarter than Spinoza, a greater power at least. I would imagine that there are also economical thinkers of such caliber,

We could discuss such things in some of the other fora philosophy, and as mentioned social sciences, but philosophy is too general, as it necessarily deals also with the non-practical, it is able to operate prior to such judgment.

This suggestion is in part inspired by a couple of recent threads moving toward a greater measure of philosophical control of legislation (economical and otherwise) and reformation of the penal system.

The majority of Law Forums seem to be more practical than theory based, that’s true. It seems like there aren’t too many people, outside of those in the field, that take an interest in law. I suppose I am one of the few that do.

If you would be interested, and Carleas is willing to go ahead with it, an Economics and Law sub-forum probably wouldn’t be a bad idea, if only for a trial run. Would you be interested in something like that?

As it happens, my Degree is actually in Economics, but I’ve never worked in the field, so my knowledge is only slightly better than rudimentary.

Could you teach me Pavlonian?
I find myself largely ignorant of economics.

I would certainly discuss any matter of or related to Economics with you. I don’t know how well I would succeed as a teacher.

Well it certaintly couldn’t be worse then my knowledge on the subject could it? I get my money back from that college if it were.

There’s only one way to find out.

Where’s that refund request form?

Tell me. are there correct and Incorrect economic systems.

I hear much criticism and praise about particular economic policies without real explanation of what there benefits and/or detriments are.

To the second part you have to be more specific.

To the first part, I’m not going to use the words, “Correct,” and, “Incorrect,” as a Philosopher would in discussing Economics. The short answer is, if utilizing a certain economic system achieved the result desired by those who implemented it, then it was correct, if it did not achieve said result, then it was incorrect.

Or, do you mean Universally?

Because that’s one thing Economics and Philosophy have in common, there are very few (if any) Universals.

In your opinion, What would be the most stable economic policy that would generate enough income too support the state while also having reserves of wealth? Should an unforseen crises or need arise for which that surplus wealth is needed.

Income-limited semi-Capitalistic (small business allowed) version of Socialism with Universal Health Care, no malpractice suits allowed for excusable mistakes, where the monetary system is based strictly on the Gold Standard.

But…perhaps you should start a thread in Social Sciences if we are to continue in this vein.

Alright, do you a have a title suggestion?

“Income-limited semi-Capitalistic (small business allowed) version of Socialism with Universal Health Care, no malpractice suits allowed for excusable mistakes, where the monetary system is based strictly on the Gold Standard.?”

Just kidding.

How about, “Stoic’s Economics Thread?”

Simple, to the point.

I’ll get on that now.

I wonder if you’d find this interesting or not. Didn’t get any response at the time, but maybe it’s up your alley.

I say this every time there’s a request for a new forum so I apologize if this is repetitive for some, but…

There is a significant cost to adding a new forum, and that cost is usually not considered in the request for a new forum. The cost is apparent if we consider a hypothetical where every new thread is housed in its own sub-sub-sub[…] forum. In that case, navigating the site would be difficult, and many threads would go unread as a result. The index page would be a mile long, moderation would be near impossible: either there would be no filter for spam or clearly inappropriate posts, or there would be so many staff members that the standards for moderation would be near unpredictable

The other extreme to consider is the situation where there is only one forum. In that case, there is no organization to the threads and new threads bump out older threads quickly, and again many interesting threads will get less attention than they deserve.

These examples show the balance of interests in considering the addition of a new forum. We want multiple forums up to the point where adding new divisions creates less clarity than it creates usability issues.

I’d argue that we don’t need a Law and Economics forum, because, as has been pointed out, there is not enough interest in them to provide substantial benefit. But I’m open to the idea, and willing to hear the counter-point. How many topics on this are being posted/should we expect to be posted? How many is enough to justify a forum?

More broadly, on a site of X members (or Y posts/day), how many forums should we have total? What should they be? If it were entirely up to me (in some sense it is, but in many more relevant senses it is not), I would look to eliminate forums rather than create new ones. Whatever the ideal total of forums, what forums would they be?

Honestly, you’re probably right, Carleas. Prior to this thread, I was actually thinking about asking you about possibly eliminating the Current Events sub-forum and renaming the Main Forum, “Social Sciences and Current Events.” Without the period, of course.

How do you feel about that, by the way?

Fair points I suppose. I had certainly not considered extra cost. I’m afraid I know little of how such things work in practice.

My motivation is as I said – I want philosophy to become more relevant to current power.
to this purpose I was thinking of means to attract people with positions of power.

The idea for a law and and economics forum is therefore justified (to me) in two ways – a space to explore two great real-world domains where philosophy may operate, and a space within philosophical discourse to attract real-world powers.

Of course it is not said that such professionals would indeed be attracted to ILP. But I still think it is worth the try.

Regarding clutter and chaos I have nothing in defense – I have no idea of the amount of work the moderation of such a forum as this demands.

Anon - such things would be exactly what I would like to invest in. It is fascinating to learn of the different problems the phenomenon context presents in governing the real world.

Is current power relevant? Why so optimistic?