@AquaKire But private markets do loads of things to fix injustices. Aside from constantly improving service and reducing costs, there are the non-government charities and philanthropists. And we haven't even touched on the harm done by government intervention. Just off the bat, reduced industry competition is a very real and very harmful thing for all members of society. Suppose we socialized cell phones. It's easy to imagine how that would demolish progress.
Nah, Family Guy is in good taste :D Anyway, I love that thought experiment (leaving the country to not participate in it's taxes anymore, but then doing the same without necessarily leaving the country and instead simply not using those services). I would really love if that kind of option existed. And if it did, I know lots of people would be opting to not involve themselves in many government services. I think the effect would be very rapid downsizing of the government. So very good.
I'm new to Nozick. Why didn't he go one step further and argue for the complete abolition of the state, given every function of it can be 'marketised' (yes, even courts, roads, etc)?
So from what I remember, Nozick believed in privatization of everything except security. The argument, somewhat hobbesian, goes something like this: 1. everyone needs a private security force, and preservation of one's life is very important 2. There is a private security company which is better than all others 3. Because security is so important, this superlative force will get all the customers and establish a monopoly 4. This monopoly *is* the state
Fair enough. Thanks for explaining. Like I say, I've only really just started listening to him. Did he not consider Dispute Resolution organisations and such? If security is so important, won't competing providers move to provide that service in a free society at the highest standard for the lowest price? Cheers.
@daveseanparkes I'd argue that is good, since the government is awful at those services anyway. I don't think the "poor" are really benefiting that much from these things, at least not enough to justify taking so much of our money. When the government tries to do things for us, it makes that industry more expensive and it reduces competition. FYI, I'm not rich at all, I barely make 5 digits a year, just thought I'd make sure you don't think I'm secretly some rich CEO trying to screw the poor.
I think he is misunderstanding Rawls in the beginning with his "journey of the imagination into fairness land." Just because you don't deserve your talents doesn't mean you shouldn't use them.
I'm not clear on what you mean by either 'submerging' or 'privilege'. I don't see the human tendency to organize itself around tribal/ethnic boundaries as problematic. Look at what we have today in USA: Korea-town, China-town, South Boston (Irish-town), North End (again Boston, Italian-town), etc. Neighborhoods begin to organize themselves around peoples preferences for near whom they might prefer to live. Perhaps Anglo-Saxon communities would similarly self-organize?
Ownership isn't claimed, it is legitimately acquired or it isn't ownership - it's stolen goods. If something exist you can define it. Political philosophy field requires YOU to define the term that is considered so that we're speaking about the same thing - in the direction of truth. Try and you'll fail. Otherwise externalities do not exist.
Wtf a collective agreement means? No such thing. Either there is agreement - it's voluntary, or there isn't. It's a LAW, an opinion with a threat of lethal force behind it.
Distributive justice is injustice, because anything different from justice is precisely this - something else. Law of identity, no? It's really simple. Your assertion is totally baseless, because this "fairness" with egalitarian distribution is nothing else but a form of socialism or even communism. Misesian economic calculation problem kicks in. Empirical evidence of USSR. North Korea (cannibalism as we speak is reported)vs South, Germany East vs West. No, they wouldn't benefit economically.
Dude - you're totally lost in the concepts - society can't agree about anything - it is a concept, it doesn't exist in reality, only in your mind, like the number 2. Only individuals can agree about anything, or not. Ok, define it. No - we have nothing to talk about then.
*then But maybe there is bad philosophy( at school it would not surprize me at all) , just llike keynesianism is mostly antieconomics. It's taught to millions of 'economists' all around the world - so what it's gibberish. They treat people like rocks :D
The problem with your analogy is that no one will starve if their marriage partner isn't sufficiently attractive, but that will happen if the minimum wage is debased. If the minimum wage is low enough, you effectively have serfdom. Nozickian thinkers have this bizarre logic where they arrive at a contradiction and then power through. If your system by its normal operation produces serfdom, you should change that system. It's not tolerable. Instead, people like Chris Freiman offer the argument that it's basically better to be able to choose between serfdom and destitution. But such a choice is ipso facto unjust. Nozick's abandonment of Rawlsian reasoning is one of the reasons he's able to arrive at stupid conclusions.
Pay attention to adjectives attached to well defined stuff - those are the conjectures that render idiotic nonexistent concepts most of the time. Read the law of identity.
That's nice, can I ask where's the authority of yours to tell me what is legitimate or not? And don't threaten me - because you're many miles away and I can't come and discuss this with you face to face, so it's pointless, besides, your state is not mine state so... And states are in the state of anarchy... A dragon allows me to stay - just as idiotic as society allows me to stay. Study some stuff first, dude, some basic logic, some philosophy, improve yourself before you talk such matters
Social contract theories are not "facts". I recommend you check out Lysander Spooner's 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority' if you care about the kinds of arguments that might have motivated Nozick (or anyone who rejects social contracts)
@AquaKire But private markets do loads of things to fix injustices. Aside from constantly improving service and reducing costs, there are the non-government charities and philanthropists.
And we haven't even touched on the harm done by government intervention. Just off the bat, reduced industry competition is a very real and very harmful thing for all members of society. Suppose we socialized cell phones. It's easy to imagine how that would demolish progress.
Thanks very much, great lecture.
Nah, Family Guy is in good taste :D
Anyway, I love that thought experiment (leaving the country to not participate in it's taxes anymore, but then doing the same without necessarily leaving the country and instead simply not using those services). I would really love if that kind of option existed. And if it did, I know lots of people would be opting to not involve themselves in many government services. I think the effect would be very rapid downsizing of the government. So very good.
Great lecture!
I may have missed it, but where did he mention the name Rawls?
I'm new to Nozick. Why didn't he go one step further and argue for the complete abolition of the state, given every function of it can be 'marketised' (yes, even courts, roads, etc)?
So from what I remember, Nozick believed in privatization of everything except security. The argument, somewhat hobbesian, goes something like this:
1. everyone needs a private security force, and preservation of one's life is very important
2. There is a private security company which is better than all others
3. Because security is so important, this superlative force will get all the customers and establish a monopoly
4. This monopoly *is* the state
Fair enough. Thanks for explaining. Like I say, I've only really just started listening to him. Did he not consider Dispute Resolution organisations and such? If security is so important, won't competing providers move to provide that service in a free society at the highest standard for the lowest price? Cheers.
@daveseanparkes I'd argue that is good, since the government is awful at those services anyway. I don't think the "poor" are really benefiting that much from these things, at least not enough to justify taking so much of our money. When the government tries to do things for us, it makes that industry more expensive and it reduces competition.
FYI, I'm not rich at all, I barely make 5 digits a year, just thought I'd make sure you don't think I'm secretly some rich CEO trying to screw the poor.
great lecture
It is so tremendous to listen to him slurp when he drinks from that water bottle
I think he is misunderstanding Rawls in the beginning with his "journey of the imagination into fairness land." Just because you don't deserve your talents doesn't mean you shouldn't use them.
I'm not clear on what you mean by either 'submerging' or 'privilege'. I don't see the human tendency to organize itself around tribal/ethnic boundaries as problematic. Look at what we have today in USA: Korea-town, China-town, South Boston (Irish-town), North End (again Boston, Italian-town), etc. Neighborhoods begin to organize themselves around peoples preferences for near whom they might prefer to live. Perhaps Anglo-Saxon communities would similarly self-organize?
Ownership isn't claimed, it is legitimately acquired or it isn't ownership - it's stolen goods. If something exist you can define it. Political philosophy field requires YOU to define the term that is considered so that we're speaking about the same thing - in the direction of truth. Try and you'll fail. Otherwise externalities do not exist.
Why aren't you pointing my spelling errors - I could learn faster this way it was surprise, surprize is Hungry I suppose.
You can use your talents, you'll just be taxed if you do too well in fairness land.
I love how he starts with claiming people misunderstand Nozick, when he goes on to completely misunderstand Rawls.
Wtf a collective agreement means? No such thing. Either there is agreement - it's voluntary, or there isn't. It's a LAW, an opinion with a threat of lethal force behind it.
This wasn't an assertion - rather advice.
control and permission - forgive me, the peasant from Eastern Europe :D
Distributive justice is injustice, because anything different from justice is precisely this - something else. Law of identity, no? It's really simple.
Your assertion is totally baseless, because this "fairness" with egalitarian distribution is nothing else but a form of socialism or even communism. Misesian economic calculation problem kicks in. Empirical evidence of USSR. North Korea (cannibalism as we speak is reported)vs South, Germany East vs West. No, they wouldn't benefit economically.
Dude - you're totally lost in the concepts - society can't agree about anything - it is a concept, it doesn't exist in reality, only in your mind, like the number 2. Only individuals can agree about anything, or not.
Ok, define it. No - we have nothing to talk about then.
*then
But maybe there is bad philosophy( at school it would not surprize me at all) , just llike keynesianism is mostly antieconomics. It's taught to millions of 'economists' all around the world - so what it's gibberish. They treat people like rocks :D
The problem with your analogy is that no one will starve if their marriage partner isn't sufficiently attractive, but that will happen if the minimum wage is debased. If the minimum wage is low enough, you effectively have serfdom.
Nozickian thinkers have this bizarre logic where they arrive at a contradiction and then power through. If your system by its normal operation produces serfdom, you should change that system. It's not tolerable. Instead, people like Chris Freiman offer the argument that it's basically better to be able to choose between serfdom and destitution. But such a choice is ipso facto unjust.
Nozick's abandonment of Rawlsian reasoning is one of the reasons he's able to arrive at stupid conclusions.
Pay attention to adjectives attached to well defined stuff - those are the conjectures that render idiotic nonexistent concepts most of the time. Read the law of identity.
That's nice, can I ask where's the authority of yours to tell me what is legitimate or not? And don't threaten me - because you're many miles away and I can't come and discuss this with you face to face, so it's pointless, besides, your state is not mine state so... And states are in the state of anarchy...
A dragon allows me to stay - just as idiotic as society allows me to stay. Study some stuff first, dude, some basic logic, some philosophy, improve yourself before you talk such matters
surely, than you should know that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - and I don't believe you :D:D:D
Nozick ignores the fact that people are social beings and agree to said limitations through democratic processes.
Yes. Organized government theft is very "social."
He doesn't ignore that, he simply says it shouldn't be coerced. If you coerce it then you are assuming people do not want to help one another.
Social contract theories are not "facts".
I recommend you check out Lysander Spooner's 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority' if you care about the kinds of arguments that might have motivated Nozick (or anyone who rejects social contracts)
On the contrary, he accepts that and assumes people will behave in a social manner without violence or threat of violence.
lol