Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia | David Gordon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лип 2019
- Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 16 July 2019.
Mises University is the world's leading instructional program in the Austrian school of economics. Mises.org/MU19
Thanks for this, David. I think Nozick succeeds as much as it is possible to succeed, but you do a great job of laying out some key points as well as common misconceptions about Nozick. You are also helping to encourage people to read who I consider to be the greatest political philosopher... so far. Rothbard, in my view, was the greatest economic scholar so far, but I don't count him as a even a middling philosopher.
Doesn't Nozick's entitlement theory of justice sort of suggest that all present ownership claims to wealth are illegitimate? Since we can't trace private property claims back through an unbroken chain of just transactions and original acquisition, that seems to invalidate all present property claims protected by the state.
I like part 1 of Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty. To me, it offers a great place to start to study natural rights with respect to its content, but much more so if you go to the citations. There is so much more depth, at least to me, in doing that rather than focusing on only say Locke and Rothbard alone. I think that Rothbard makes a good case Libertarianism in For a New Liberty. My historiography prof kept bringing up Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but I always seemed to find what he was getting from Nozick was a complicated phrasing of what Rothbard said so much clearer. Though perhaps well intentioned, I found that Nozick took the subject of liberty and spewed a bunch of IQ points at it, and often made the subject harder than it needed to be while most of the time not offering anything useful. It may be that this book should be recommended, but I do not think that reading it should have a high priority for a student of liberty if you can avoid it, instead starting with The Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty, and working your way back through history.
I’d prefer reading this. Anyone has this discourse in written?
These protection agencies are state-like entities. I'd really appreciate more honesty about these things from ancaps. When you impose rules on others at gunpoint, regardless of justification, you are acting as a state. Claiming that the NAP justifies such actions doesn't change anything. The nightwatchmen state does not "have a right to...", it gains the right to from the natural individual human right to not be killed without provocation. This is in line with Bastiat.
"Government is the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion." ~Ludwig von Mises [This definition appears to render anarchism praxeologically impossible.]
Who is David Gordon