Hot answers tagged

10

Heading into the library: The book awaits, retrieved from a 6.5 million book warehouse: Excitement as page 57 is present: Compared to the consecutive pages, the page itself is rather hard to read. My first thought was that when compiling the book, it had been retrieved from a different source. But there are more similarly unclear pages later in the book, ...


6

You should stop conflating people like Friedman with Ayn Rand. Friedman was far less consistent than Rand in his advocacy of freedom. So I'm going to address the sort of thing I think Rand would say. Also, Rand wasn't a libertarian in part because libertarianism is such a big tent that it includes people like Friedman who advocated anti-capitalist policies: ...


6

Some libertarians oppose patents and copyrights in principle, see Kinsella's manifesto Against Intellectual Property. A common view is that due to its reproducibility (e.g. "theft" does not deprive the owner of the use of his/her creation or invention) "intellectual property" lacks a crucial feature of being "property". The alternative interpretation is of a ...


5

Excellent question. J.S. Mill regarded the Greatest Happiness Principle as the moral truth. The principle states that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill then equated happiness with pleasure, following Benthamite tradition. After all, both Bentham and Mill are ...


4

(Since it seems to have confused at least one person, Libertarianism per se is a political philosophy and not an ethics. Whether your ethics should override politics in any given situation is another point, for another time. If Libertarianism is the framing, this is a political philosophy question, and it is not so much about Person A's individual action, ...


3

The fourth condition is a subjunctive conditional. However, I believe that Nozick tentatively proposed a slightly different set of truth-conditions for subjunctive conditionals. He endorsed the following: “If it were the case that P, S would believe that P” is true iff, in every close possible world in which P is true, S believes that P. You are correct ...


3

Not a specialist in Ethics, but it looks to me like the fundamental issue here is whether everyone has rights only over himself (the classical liberal position) or whether some people have rights over others (Rawls's position). Rawls has to be saying that some people have rights over others because the strategically rational set of principles of justice that ...


2

Yes I believe it is his counterfactual statements. One’s true belief that p is knowledge if and only if the following two conditions hold: if p were not the case, one would not believe that p, and if p were the case, one would believe that p. I've only just started to research it myself, but this might help: http://www.iep.utm.edu/epis-clo/#SH3b


2

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 ...


2

The question is what would libertarian morality say to a person who wonders whether it is morally permissible for him to save his own life by taking a bottle of water, which belongs to someone else. The situation is such that the parched person cannot gain the consent of the bottle owner (either the owner is not there or refuses to give him although she ...


2

▻ NOZICK'S CONDITIONS On Nozick's analysis, S knows that p if and only if (1) p is true. (2) S believes, via method or way of coming to believe M, that p. (3) If p weren't true and S were to use M to arrive at a belief whether (or not) p, then S wouldn't believe, via M, that p. (4) If p were true and S were to use M to arrive at a ...


2

A new government wants to take control. They want to give everyone $5 a month. Because they believe that is equality. There are rich people and poor people. So if the government gives $5 to everyone they are making the rich richer and the poor a bit better off. But still the two classes are not equal However that government says they are. There's ...


2

'Different' and 'differential' are not synonymous. The phrases 'differential entitlements' and 'differential deserts' have meanings that cannot be captured with 'different entitlements' and 'different deserts'. In this context, 'differential' means discriminating. For instance, if I say that I give differential treatment to my students, that means that I am ...


1

'Differential' in this context means differences in outcome based on some natural or well-ordered dimension or dimensions. For example, innate differences in size and physical strength predicate differential outcomes for people pursuing a professional football career; pre-given differences in parental wealth predicate differential access to educational ...


1

Background: To be able to understand Nozick, you have to keep in mind (1) his tracking theory of knowledge, (2) his position on how to trace the truth no matter how varying through time conditions are i.e., differential quality and (3) his ideas from Invariances where he clearly demonstrates an evolutionary vision about the truth concerning time and space, ...


1

Reading the quote just in isolation it is very confusing, and the way Wacks clips it does not help (at least just reading that page doesn't help much). Let's explain it as follows: Nozick's minimalist position is that people have the right to engage in transactions with each other and that there's nothing wrong with this leading to unequal outcomes as long ...


1

Central to Nozick's position is a belief in individual property rights or 'holdings'. He believes that provided individuals have gained their property by just acquisition and just exchange - the conditions for which he lays down - their property should not be at the disposal of society or the state. It is owned by individuals as of right and is not a kind of ...


1

What is happiness or pleasure??? Depending on the answer, you question can be either meaningful or meaningless. Philosophers have offered at least four different answers. happiness = hedonistic pleasures Problem: Those who seek these pleasures eventually became unhappy. too much gluttony leads to health problems. happiness = desire satisfaction ...


1

I can't resist to make two general remarks: The principle "to enjoy the fruits of one's talent and labor" is a meritocratic principle. If Libertarianism is about meritocracy, Libertarians could also argue for anti-discrimination laws, state grants for gifted students, extremely high inheritance taxes, etc. but Libertarians don't seem to do that. To argue ...


1

Nobody can know what Rand or Nozick would have said, but here is what they should have said: Suppose the medicine costs, say, $100, and that a healthy infant has a 1% chance of someday needing it. Then as long as there are functioning markets, one can insure against needing the medicine at a price of about $1 (maybe a bit more to cover administrative ...


1

How is Nozick's Demoktesis Argument supposed to show that modern democracy (by representation) is equivalent to slavery?


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible