Political philosopher. Fantasy enthusiast. Torontonian. Anti-AI zealot. My book: Public Reason and Political Autonomy (Routledge, 2022). My work: https://uwm.edu/philosophy/people/neufeld-blain/ My hobby: https://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com
1,972 followers 504 following 268 posts
view profile on Bluesky 
York Centre for Social Justice and Democracy (formerly known as York Centre for Political Theory) 2026 BOOK MANUSCRIPT WORKSHOP (DEADLINE Friday, 19 December 2025) Information can be found here: www.york.ac.uk/politics/cpt... APPLY and, please, circulate widely! @martinoneill.bsky.social
“Instead of ‘democratizing intelligence,’ as Mr. Solomon claims, we are witnessing a kind of collective brain damage. The Minister of AI should be mitigating those risks, rather than naively championing the tech behind it all.” 🎁 link www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/7ff7d5d...
I don’t understand why people in AI don’t realise that in effect they are currently building the world’s largest parasite, and parasites can only survive for as long as the underlying host is strong and healthy.
Maybe Steve Bannon was booked that day. Fuck... www.cbc.ca/news/politic...
Welcome to the new Dark Age. Leading the way: Florida (naturally).
I wonder how long until other countries start requiring proof of vaccination forms from USian visitors...
Interesting thread. So much has been written about Rawls’s political philosophy, but not much about the role of love in it. (Weithman 2010 discusses it a bit with respect to the sense of justice and social stability.)
USA. Closed for business AND pleasure. Other countries are available.
Happy Weekend! 😆 "A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that most of Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal, undercutting the Republican president's use of the levies as a key international economic policy tool."
I live in Toronto (70% of the time).
Finally, an essay that clearly & succinctly expresses my profound loathing for "AI"!
"I became a hater by doing ... those things AI cannot do: reading and understanding...; thinking and reasoning about ideas; considering the meaning of my words and their context;... AI cannot be a hater, because AI does not feel, or know, or care. Only humans can be haters. I celebrate my humanity."
Registration is open for the NOMOS conference on Capitalism and Socialism. The Zoom and registration links, as well as the final schedule and paper titles are available at www.political-theory.org. With thanks to the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics @harvard.edu for hosting.
Can AIs suffer? Hope so. They need to share the pain they cause.
At least the UK has 4 years to get sorted. How anyone could support Reform given what is happening in the US under DJT is baffling.
Guy In Philosophy Class Needs To Shut The Fuck Up https://theonion.com/guy-in-philosophy-class-needs-to-shut-the-fuck-up-1819568055/
An old friend is crashing at our place for a while...
It is good to see our Prime Minister standing with Ukraine. Trump and Putin are trying to sell the people of Ukraine out. Canada must show solidarity against the gangsters.
100%! 👍
Listen to the internet. It’s trying to tell you something!
R uses an analogy to explain his views. You dislike the analogy and think its use reflects a trivialization of politics. I don’t think that’s the case at all. How could I possibly convince you that you’re wrong? I just don’t understand how someone could interpret an analogy in the way you do.
The argument rests on an absurdly uncharitable construal of Rawls’s use of an analogy. You don’t like the analogy. Fine. There’s nothing more to say.
Having endured decades of claims that it’s time to “move on” from Rawls, I am regularly amazed by the high-quality of *new* Rawls-inspired work. E.g. just this month I reviewed: - Gina Schouten (2024) The Anatomy of Justice (OUP) - G. Badano & A. Nuti (2024) Politicizing Political Liberalism (OUP)
A different write-up of the same study:
... "Philosophy majors scored particularly well on measures designed to assess 'skills and dispositions appropriate for living and working in a diverse society.'”
"Political philosophers have long argued that citizens need strong critical thinking skills and intellectual humility to participate effectively in democratic governance." ...
The reason for the “political turn” is that Rawls thought that the institutions of a free society would invariably lead people to endorse different worldviews. So, in order to be internally coherent, liberalism had to be justifiable to those views (but not views that rejected liberal institutions).
Academic philosophy (in reaction): 😭
Rawls actually discusses Vatican II a lot, as well as some Islamic works, in explaining the compatibility of religion and liberalism. He says surprisingly little about Protestantism (aside from the doctrine of “free faith”).
That might be true of “ordinary people”. But elites — people who help shape the political views of ordinary people — have and do make arguments about liberalism and its purported incompatibility (or compatibility) with their religious or other worldviews.
The overlapping consensus has to be created. It is a project for liberalism to explain why a social world governed by the principles of justice as fairness is one to which they should be committed, whatever their worldviews. It was never a description of existing society.
Rawls’s commitment to “neutrality” was actually very limited. He mentions it only once. With respect to the core ideals of citizenship and society, Rawlsian liberalism is *not* neutral. Public reason is not “neutral” vis-a-vis illiberal and antidemocratic views.
Instead of pursuing a hopeless and illiberal “one true way” approach, Rawlsian political liberalism holds that so long as one endorses the core liberal ideals — free and equal citizenship, etc. — one can be a full blown liberal. People can provide their own deeper justifications.
The alternative is to insist that in order to endorse liberal principles, one has to endorse a specific worldview or philosophical system (Kantianism, utilitarianism, perfectionism, whatever). That itself is *illiberal*. This is because disagreement is inevitable in a free society.
But liberalism is “purely political” only in the limited sense that its principles can be justified within the frameworks of many different worldviews, at least at this time in history. Rawls never thought liberalism could be “political all the way down.”
America today is Gotham City in which Trump is both Lex Luthor and also the Mayor.
So do you have this view about philosophers in general? E.g., Rousseau and Marx? The abuse and misuse of "compressed" versions of their views warrants rejecting them? Libertarians misinterpret and misuse Mill. Does that render Mill useless? Why is "reducible to a slogan" a worthwhile metric?
This is a genuine difference. But even here, Rawls does base this theory of the 'right' on a 'thin theory of the good' and on certain robust ideals. Moreover, I think that Rawls is right that any view that requires all citizens to share the *same* conception of the good is hopeless and anti-liberal.
A respectful reply from the author here: bsky.app/profile/polp...
Rawls’s overarching project is to refute the despair or cynical resignation that people might have about realizing robust liberal egalitarian justice. That strikes me as a very timely goal given the current state of the world!
In Political Liberalism Rawls writes: “A cause of the fall of Weimar’s constitutional regime was that none of the traditional elites of Germany supported its constitution or were willing to cooperate to make it work. They no longer believed a decent liberal parliamentary regime was possible.” (lix)
For a recent book that argues for the potency of Rawls’s political philosophy in opposing illiberal and anti-democratic movements, see Badano and Nuti (2024) _Politicizing Political Liberalism_ (OUP).
Of course, Rawls thought people should justify their commitment to the fundamental ideals in terms of their broader worldviews (religious, philosophical, etc.). But the ideals themselves are not “neutral” — they must be championed and defended against movements opposed to them.
Rawls’s goal was to show that a just liberal egalitarian society was feasible — it was not a hopeless project. And it aimed to show that all who share the fundamental ideals can share this vision. We don’t all have to be Millian utilitarians (or Kantians, etc.) — which is hopelessly unrealistic.
In fact, his theory is based on 2 fundamental ideals: citizens as free & equal, and society as a fair system of social cooperation. Liberalism is *not* “neutral” with respect to those ideals. It was his revulsion at *fascism* (WW2) that motivated his project ….
Interesting piece, but quite unfair to Rawls’s actual views. It seems to be more about the misinterpretation and misuse of his ideas by elites. Rawls disliked the term “neutrality” (he mentions it only once, in order to explain the limited kind of neutrality that is compatible with his theory). …
Below are my comments on the original post...
As I explain in my comments on this post, I think that this article is unfair to Rawls's actual views. Scholarly concerns aside, I don't see how gratuitously bashing allies is helpful to the liberal cause. (And of course there's the fact that Rawls's conception of justice is broadly correct...)
Rawls’s overarching project is to refute the despair or cynical resignation that people might have about realizing robust liberal egalitarian justice. That strikes me as a very timely goal given the current state of the world!
In Political Liberalism Rawls writes: “A cause of the fall of Weimar’s constitutional regime was that none of the traditional elites of Germany supported its constitution or were willing to cooperate to make it work. They no longer believed a decent liberal parliamentary regime was possible.” (lix)
For a recent book that argues for the potency of Rawls’s political philosophy in opposing illiberal and anti-democratic movements, see Badano and Nuti (2024) _Politicizing Political Liberalism_ (OUP).
Of course, Rawls thought people should justify their commitment to the fundamental ideals in terms of their broader worldviews (religious, philosophical, etc.). But the ideals themselves are not “neutral” — they must be championed and defended against movements opposed to them.
Rawls’s goal was to show that a just liberal egalitarian society was feasible — it was not a hopeless project. And it aimed to show that all who share the fundamental ideals can share this vision. We don’t all have to be Millian utilitarians (or Kantians, etc.) — which is hopelessly unrealistic.
In fact, his theory is based on 2 fundamental ideals: citizens as free & equal, and society as a fair system of social cooperation. Liberalism is *not* “neutral” with respect to those ideals. It was his revulsion at *fascism* (WW2) that motivated his project ….
Interesting piece, but quite unfair to Rawls’s actual views. It seems to be more about the misinterpretation and misuse of his ideas by elites. Rawls disliked the term “neutrality” (he mentions it only once, in order to explain the limited kind of neutrality that is compatible with his theory). …
This made me truly laugh out loud. (Found on the internet -- apologies for not being able to give proper credit.)
One of the better essays on the “promise” of AI that I’ve read. “The technology may still do an excellent job of making our educational system irrelevant, leaving a generation reliant on getting answers from a chatbot instead of thinking for themselves...”
"why does bluesky hate AI?" why does the college professor website hate the homework cheating software, is that what you're asking?
Conservative Man Proudly Frightened Of Everything theonion.com/conserv...
My seminar (MA students) this fall will be on “Liberalism and Anti-liberalism.”
The volume of Canadians taking road trips into the U.S.—the way most Canadians visit—dropped by 37% last month compared to July 2024, according to new data from Statistics Canada, following a 33% drop in June. There was also a 26% decline in air travelers from Canada year-over-year.
If reading quickly (or simply for pleasure), I'm fine with digital. But if reading carefully (for work, whether research or teaching), I need paper, where I can underline and scrawl notes in the margins as need be. I've tried electronic tools that purport to do that, but they just seem wrong.
Damn. Sorry to hear about this, Laura.
It is time to take the Canadian boycott global. This is the message I gave to elected representatives from across the Americas at the recent Pan-American Congress in Mexico City. Please watch my remarks. www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7gb...
One more reason to love BC.
Great day for everyone whose 2024 brand move was claiming that Dems were exaggerating how bad Trump would be.
100% yes.
It's happening! (But slowly: there are ~45 more chapters to go...) 📖 #philsky #philosophy #poltheory
Interesting that in some areas there appears to be a competitive advantage emerging where services are advertised as NOT using AI. AI as the processed food of information.
MAGA ambassador Pete Hoosktra lashed out at Canadians for being "mean and nasty." He is pissed off we won't kiss the ring and buy their products. American media has realized the huge impact of the Canadian boycott. Please read my latest. charlieangus.substack.com/p/maga-is-fr...
I don't normally agree with G&M editorials, but this one is spot on. “[A]t this point, Mr. Trump’s unprovoked economic bullying and attacks on Canadian sovereignty and culture are no longer the only problem. The issue has also become what he is doing to his own country.”
Trump's MAGA ambassador to Canada says Canadians are mean and nasty because we won't spend a dime in a nation that threatens our sovereignty and puts people in concentration camps. We aren't mean we just don't go along with criminals who get elected to high office. Keep the boycott strong.
In my view, the window to *forestall* autocratization of the US political system is basically closed. We're now in the consolidation phase of a new authoritarian constitutional settlement. The question is how far it'll get (will it achieve its apparent goal of fascism?) & at what pace. Here's why:
Related: www.davidmoscrop.com/p/pierre-poi...
Excellent piece from my good friend Christie Hartley. As usual, I agree with her argument.
Poilievre will never be PM. His moment has passed and will never return. The only question is how long it will take for the Cons to realize this.
Did anyone think you could negotiate in good faith with a gangster? Trump has never wavered from using economic threat to break our nation. Prime Minister Mark Carney must immediately reimpose the digital services tax and respond dollar for dollar. Elbows down doesn't work with a gangster.
It never ceases to amaze me how much the WI GOP hates the best thing about their state, the UW system.
An interesting review, well worth reading. Regarding: "liberal egalitarianism has long struggled to come to grips with the nature of economic power." There's a lot of interesting recent work by Rawlsians on this (e.g., W Edmundson's book, articles by M O'Neill and others). A growing research area!
Stiglitz on Canada’s capitulation on the DST: “Canada should have stood up for its principles and national sovereignty, even in the face of such transparent bullying. The alternative now emerging is the law of the jungle, brute power and Canada becoming, de facto, the 51st US state.“
I want an app that will automatically disable all AI on all my apps. And I want a browser that will disable all AI on all sites I visit. Call it “neo-Luddite” or whatever. Is that too much to ask?
www.insidehighered.com/news/global/...
I’ll get around to reading that essay— eventually…
I've long wanted to write a proper philosophical defence of idleness. But, ugh, the work that would involve...
I’ve seen the future. Millions of people in the US putting their symptoms into free online AI medical diagnosis sites and being sold bogus ‘cures’ from companies endorsed by RFK brought to them by express drones.
Ketchup potato chips. Popular and adored in Canada. But absolutely disgusting.
If one learns anything from the Lord of the Rings, it's LEAVE RINGS DISCOVERED IN BODIES OF WATER ALONE
A brief history of the Canadian flag. I knew the overall story, but there are some cool details in this post.
I assume that you are still a Canadian citizen? I would hang on to that passport, given how things are going in the US these days…
You probably were targeted because you recently spent a fair amount of time outside the US, I'd guess.
I used to get this very ad pretty regularly. No doubt it was because I divide my time between Canada & the US. It was somewhat reassuring that the algorithm didn't realize that I wasn't a US citizen already (and so had nothing to "renounce"). They disappeared once I strengthened my ad blocker.
Good luck with this Newt! How does it differ from “Swords Against the Shroud”?
14 MILLION deaths in the next five years.
Happy Canada Day, eh! 🇨🇦 Here's the view from my new post at Fort York (Toronto). Keeping the True North Strong and Free -- from the Orange Menace to the south.
*sigh* 🙁
My review on Alexandre Lefebvre’s recent book , and the book of Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti, has been out in Political Theory. Both are great innovative philosophical works that explain how Rawlsianism can respond to some pressing problems nowadays. Strongly recommend! 👍
This looks great Baldwin. But is there a downloadable (pre-print) version? The link requires a journal subscription. (My institution does subscribe to Pol Theory, but it's a pain to navigate it.)