fantastic, a book
you can read - wonderful!
hang on i'm being mighty presumptuous
accrediting you with having read it
ah well
I have to clean my room for my mom. Sorry. I'll continue this later.
1 Like
Ye we all had laptops
Lots of halo ce during history class if you couldnât tell
NABOKOV1995 - You live in your moms basement LOL!!
nmaGane - You live in your moms apartment building LOL!! (never said ever)
funny why that is never brought up......
" Stanford University political scientist [David D. Laitin] described it as "a magisterial book." But he said there were flaws in the methodology of the book, saying the book "is a product of undisciplined history. For one, Scottâs evidence is selective and eclectic, with only minimal attempts to weigh disconfirming evidence... It is all too easy to select confirming evidence if the author can choose from the entire historical record and use material from all countries of the world"
Economist [Deepak Lal] reviewed the book concluding: "Although I am in sympathy with Scottâs diagnosis of the development disasters he recounts, I conclude that he has not burrowed deep enough to discover a systematic cause of these failures. (In my view, that cause lies in the continuing attraction of various forms of 'enterprises' in what at heart remains Western Christendom.) Nor is he right in so blithely dismissing the relevance of classical liberalism in finding remedies for the ills he eloquently describes."
[Political scientist] Ulf Zimmermann reviewed the book concluding: "It is important to keep in mind, as Scott likewise notes, that many of these projects replaced even worse social orders and at least occasionally introduced somewhat more egalitarian principles, never mind improving public health and such. And, in the end, many of the worst were sufficiently resisted in their absurdity, as he had shown so well in his, Weapons of the Weak and as best demonstrated by the utter collapse of the soviet system. "Metis" alone is not sufficient; we need to find a way to link it felicitously withâto stick with Scott's Aristotelian vocabularyâphronesis and praxis, or, in more ordinary terms, to produce theories more profoundly grounded in actual practice so that the state may see better in implementing policies."
Russell Hardin, a professor of politics at [New York University] reviewed the book disagreeing with Scott's diagnosis somewhat. Hardin concluded: "The failure of collectivization was therefore a failure of incentives, not a failure to rely on local knowledge."
[John Gray], author of [False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism], concluding: "Today's faith in the free market echoes the faith of earlier generations in high modernist schemes that failed at great human cost. Seeing Like a State does not tell us what it is in late modern societies that predisposes them, against all the evidence of history, to put their trust in such utopias. Sadly, no one knows enough to explain that."
David D. Laitin
He is a comparative politics scholar who has written works on civil war,[3] ethnic identity, culture and nationalism.[4] He is known for his application of rational choice to the study of ethnic conflict,[3] and for bridging a gap between ethnography and rational choice.[5]
Laitin became co-director of Stanford's Immigration Policy Lab,
Lol.
Deepak Lal
Apparently an Austrian, seems ok.
Ulf Zimmermann
Classes he teaches.
PAD 6200 - Fundamentals of Public Administration & Public Service
PAD 7100 - Philanthropy & the Nonprofit Sector
PAD 7130 - Regional Politics & Policy
PAD 7150 - Contemporary Issues: Sprawl & Social Capital
PAD 7250 - Leadership & Ethics in Public Service
Russel Hardin
Studies "collective action".
John Gray
conspiracy theorist that has Alex Jones tier takes on globalism.
Believe it or not -- there's a lot of money in telling the US FedGov that it should increase its power, enlarge, and subsume more functions in society.
2 Likes
no different than the amount of geneticists that will tell you that racial differences in intelligence have no basis in genetics.
if you'll notice, the conspiracy theorist was one of the few listed as favorably in support of the book.
I'm sorry but a large amount of everyone's arguments are like that.
No philosophy is fully "provable and quantifiable".
I am not saying you're wrong here (I don't care) - but you are being a bit hypocritical by saying this.
What are you talking about -- there are entire moral frameworks based upon it being quantifiable -- what do you think utilitarianism is you fucking r*tard
The philosophy of logic? Go away you imbecile.
Utilitarianism still comes down to "measurements" of "happiness" and the such, does it not?
1 Like
"Well actually, Godel's Incompleteness Thereom states..." Kill yourself nerd.
1 Like
Guy immediately starts dropping titles of wikipedia articles instead of actually trying to listen to what I said.
You are not going to have a full political system that is run by a totality of "logical, quantifiable, and provable" rules.
2 Likes
The U.S. constitution is not a book of logic and algorithms.
1 Like
Moreover the "unproveable" has nothing to do with the legitimicacy of the philosophical argument ti's distinctly framed within the theory of justice and distributive justice.
Within your frameworks the justice system shouldn't even exist.