2 added 351 characters in body
source | link

I'd understand this as the formation of a state, in the same vein as Hobbes Leviathan, and Rousseaus theory of the General Will in social contract theory. Hobbes argues for an absolute sovereign and state (this is the Leviathan), whereas Roussea argues for a more egalitarian possibility; notably Rousseau was writing during the French Revolution when pure democracy became a live issue as opposed to the constitutional compromise of the English Parliamentarian system that evolved after the English Civil War.

One could say that Nozick has simply updated Rousseaus state founding myth in his short book The Social Contact to the context of a libertarian social contract theory. It would be an interesting exercise to discover what the exact parallels and substitutions are.

One curious feature of the extract you quoted, is that Nozick starts by stating that libertarianism is not consistent with democracy:

Demoktesis is a thought-experiment designed to show the incompatibility of democracy with libertarianism in general and the entitlement theory specifically.

But then goes onto propose a pseudo-myth that does this! And one ought to regard this myth, as a myth in its proper sense; despite its contemporary idiom; which is the construction of a narrative that illustrates contemporary realities; but it is a pseudo-myth because its not one that has sunk deep roots into the popular consciousness; but one could argue that it is an expression of a certain popular consciousness in the States that Nozick is stating in the terms of political economy.

The real point of Anarchy, State & Utopia was to make Libertarianism as a political ideology academically respectable again, as this article points

With libertarianism everywhere [now], it's hard to remember that as recently as the 1970s, it was nowhere to be found.

I'd understand this as the formation of a state, in the same vein as Hobbes Leviathan, and Rousseaus theory of the General Will in social contract theory. Hobbes argues for an absolute sovereign and state (this is the Leviathan), whereas Roussea argues for a more egalitarian possibility; notably Rousseau was writing during the French Revolution when pure democracy became a live issue as opposed to the constitutional compromise of the English Parliamentarian system that evolved after the English Civil War.

One could say that Nozick has simply updated Rousseaus state founding myth in his short book The Social Contact to the context of a libertarian social contract theory. It would be an interesting exercise to discover what the exact parallels and substitutions are.

One curious feature of the extract you quoted, is that Nozick starts by stating that libertarianism is not consistent with democracy:

Demoktesis is a thought-experiment designed to show the incompatibility of democracy with libertarianism in general and the entitlement theory specifically.

But then goes onto propose a pseudo-myth that does this! And one ought to regard this myth, as a myth in its proper sense; despite its contemporary idiom; which is the construction of a narrative that illustrates contemporary realities; but it is a pseudo-myth because its not one that has sunk deep roots into the popular consciousness; but one could argue that it is an expression of a certain popular consciousness in the States that Nozick is stating in the terms of political economy.

I'd understand this as the formation of a state, in the same vein as Hobbes Leviathan, and Rousseaus theory of the General Will in social contract theory. Hobbes argues for an absolute sovereign and state (this is the Leviathan), whereas Roussea argues for a more egalitarian possibility; notably Rousseau was writing during the French Revolution when pure democracy became a live issue as opposed to the constitutional compromise of the English Parliamentarian system that evolved after the English Civil War.

One could say that Nozick has simply updated Rousseaus state founding myth in his short book The Social Contact to the context of a libertarian social contract theory. It would be an interesting exercise to discover what the exact parallels and substitutions are.

One curious feature of the extract you quoted, is that Nozick starts by stating that libertarianism is not consistent with democracy:

Demoktesis is a thought-experiment designed to show the incompatibility of democracy with libertarianism in general and the entitlement theory specifically.

But then goes onto propose a pseudo-myth that does this! And one ought to regard this myth, as a myth in its proper sense; despite its contemporary idiom; which is the construction of a narrative that illustrates contemporary realities; but it is a pseudo-myth because its not one that has sunk deep roots into the popular consciousness; but one could argue that it is an expression of a certain popular consciousness in the States that Nozick is stating in the terms of political economy.

The real point of Anarchy, State & Utopia was to make Libertarianism as a political ideology academically respectable again, as this article points

With libertarianism everywhere [now], it's hard to remember that as recently as the 1970s, it was nowhere to be found.

1
source | link

I'd understand this as the formation of a state, in the same vein as Hobbes Leviathan, and Rousseaus theory of the General Will in social contract theory. Hobbes argues for an absolute sovereign and state (this is the Leviathan), whereas Roussea argues for a more egalitarian possibility; notably Rousseau was writing during the French Revolution when pure democracy became a live issue as opposed to the constitutional compromise of the English Parliamentarian system that evolved after the English Civil War.

One could say that Nozick has simply updated Rousseaus state founding myth in his short book The Social Contact to the context of a libertarian social contract theory. It would be an interesting exercise to discover what the exact parallels and substitutions are.

One curious feature of the extract you quoted, is that Nozick starts by stating that libertarianism is not consistent with democracy:

Demoktesis is a thought-experiment designed to show the incompatibility of democracy with libertarianism in general and the entitlement theory specifically.

But then goes onto propose a pseudo-myth that does this! And one ought to regard this myth, as a myth in its proper sense; despite its contemporary idiom; which is the construction of a narrative that illustrates contemporary realities; but it is a pseudo-myth because its not one that has sunk deep roots into the popular consciousness; but one could argue that it is an expression of a certain popular consciousness in the States that Nozick is stating in the terms of political economy.