I missed the opportunity to hear him lecture when I was in grad school in the 90s (you know where). The "voluntary slave contract" I've read that he strongly endorsed plays into fears that this is what capitalists are really all about, but perhaps this never dawned on him. To champion liberty while "offering" people in bad straits the "opportunity" to be his (or someone else's) slave sure appears diabolical. Maybe he wasn't that smart a guy. Or maybe he was, only in a Dr. Evil kind of way.
fun stuff because the free market, and Nozick was a libertarian, is by far the greatest example of democracy. basically it can only work there as intended. as a political system it will probably always be a source of corruption, populism and moral decay.
So this sounds a lot like describing wage slavery in the beginning. Anyhow, I get the concept of taxes being theft however they do go towards something you end up using in the end (not just allocated elsewhere for what the master wants, not purely at least).
Case 9 applies to our political system, liberal democracy, but doesn't it also apply to the free market? Really, the brands, goods, and jobs you have access to are determined by a majoritarian calculation, based on how people vote with their money. That the "votes" in the economy more closely reflect power relations than they do majority opinion isn't a development towards self-determination, in fact it moves people in the opposite direction.
@ralphinator Yeah, but people who sell things, etc. are Not infringing on anyone's rights (in this hypothetical), nor are they "enslaving" anyone. They Can enslave, but not just by being successful---they can only do so by force. You can vote to enslave. You cannot sell to enslave. A successful seller hasn't taken away any of my rights. At least I can't think of one he has. Being "free" does not mean that I should have access to everything I want. That's not a right of a free person.
I no very little about Nozick, so please forgive me if my comment appears utterly ignorant. I am confused about the nature of your question. Perhaps I am a bit slow, but I never recognized an instance where I would not still be the property of someone else. Giving one the right to vote in certain situations does not appear to be any kind of genuine liberation. Without any background information, it seems that one would still be a slave. Could you highlight what is problematic in my thinking.
@SweetRandal Nozick basically believes that there should be only one law, something like that you may not initiate violence against another person. This would include messing with his property. The government itself would have to follow this law as well, so there would be no taxation (taking of property), no regulation (enforcing a regulation would be initiating a violence against a non-violent person), no laws against victimless crimes and so on.
@androsphynx "there would be no taxation"...I wonder where you would get funds for building roads, and pay basic services like polie, firemen, hospitals and education...
True freedom is unattainable...if it was possible to ahieve absolute freedom everyone would fly out of their houses like superman and wonder through space just for fun...anyway freedom although very limited, is something that is neither cultivated properly under democracy or anarchy...check out what is a timarchy...
@trueVincent555 Just to be clear, I don't actually agree with Nozick's conclusions. I'm not a libertarian. I happen to think that Nozick was brilliant, and that someone thinking about political philosophy should be aware of his ideas.
A libertarian would believe that education, hospitals and the like would be run by private corporations. Police would still be a state role. Nozick didn't believe a perfect utopia was possible, just that libertarianism was as close as you could possibly get.
Your enslavement ceased when you get to vote and speak to influence the entire elecorate. Of course, no one is completely free. Clearly this pure democracy does not provide pure freedom. Says Nozick that it does?
@PADRAEG The idea that your enslavement has ceased when you get to vote is the intuition he is challenging. He seems to be suggesting that pure democracy can be enslavement of everyone by everyone which is no better for the individual than enslavement by one.
"good4usoul" I need you to come to a particular YouTube video And debate "God" with some of these science theorists! Please send me a personal message.
Another is treating the whole as nothing but the sum of its parts. Society is more than a collection of individual.
Really, when does this society form, how many people make up society. It literally makes no sense to say society is more than a collection of individual. Society is the collection of individuals and nothing more. What the hell magically develops. It like say the global population is more than the global population. A=/=A?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When Jesus was crucified, he did not ensure people would act in a manner to serve society's interest best. He acknowledged the truth: We should not do evil to prevent evil. Just as God left us free to do evil, but choose good, men must leave one another free to choose evil, but have faith they will choose good.
In the short run we should seek better communication, better understanding, more forgiving attitudes for error. These are all matters of obedience to Jesus Christ.
In the long run, all nations will have nuclear power. A private person will have the ability to travel to distant stars, and hence to destroy planets at a whim. He will choose not to, because of love; because it would be wrong. Not because we have ensured he wouldn't.
That is a strawman argument that Democracy makes everyone free. Are there no prisons in a Democratic Society? Of course there are non-free people in a Democracy. Those who would by their will choose to do what the majority have determined is criminal will not be free to do so.
Everyone serves something, whether voluntary or involuntary. And serving yourself alone is a dead hope. Serving the common good may not be perfect, but it is better than whateve Nozick had to offer.
So you do admit that democracy is an insufficient condition for a free society.
Very well, how do we best determine what is the common good? How do we best determine how to serve the common good? How do we ensure people will act in a manner that will serve society's interest best?
Obviously it comes down to what you personally believe the common good to be.
This is why I have been an Anarchist, but not advocated Anarchy until recently. There must be an essential spiritual development in human beings.
For justice to exist people must behave in a mutually beneficial manner.
However the definition of what policy is mutually beneficial is reliant on the perception of the individual. A man must be enlightened in order to make sound actions.
Well, Nozick would not advocate for a "common good" per se. The common good is a utilitarian construction where one's individual rights may be infringed upon if the overall happiness (this word seems wrong) increases.
Nozickian philosophy proposes a morality through a series of side constraints unconcerned with what is "for the common good." These side constraints prohibit one from infringing upon another's individual rights. In this way no injustice is done to anyone.
I missed the opportunity to hear him lecture when I was in grad school in the 90s (you know where). The "voluntary slave contract" I've read that he strongly endorsed plays into fears that this is what capitalists are really all about, but perhaps this never dawned on him. To champion liberty while "offering" people in bad straits the "opportunity" to be his (or someone else's) slave sure appears diabolical. Maybe he wasn't that smart a guy. Or maybe he was, only in a Dr. Evil kind of way.
dantean 3 months ago
fun stuff because the free market, and Nozick was a libertarian, is by far the greatest example of democracy. basically it can only work there as intended. as a political system it will probably always be a source of corruption, populism and moral decay.
plmnw 3 months ago
So this sounds a lot like describing wage slavery in the beginning. Anyhow, I get the concept of taxes being theft however they do go towards something you end up using in the end (not just allocated elsewhere for what the master wants, not purely at least).
TheEthanwashere 7 months ago
Case 9 applies to our political system, liberal democracy, but doesn't it also apply to the free market? Really, the brands, goods, and jobs you have access to are determined by a majoritarian calculation, based on how people vote with their money. That the "votes" in the economy more closely reflect power relations than they do majority opinion isn't a development towards self-determination, in fact it moves people in the opposite direction.
ralphinator 1 year ago
@ralphinator Yeah, but people who sell things, etc. are Not infringing on anyone's rights (in this hypothetical), nor are they "enslaving" anyone. They Can enslave, but not just by being successful---they can only do so by force. You can vote to enslave. You cannot sell to enslave. A successful seller hasn't taken away any of my rights. At least I can't think of one he has. Being "free" does not mean that I should have access to everything I want. That's not a right of a free person.
snarge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When you realize that you are the one who gives power to your master.
r3ni3 1 year ago
I no very little about Nozick, so please forgive me if my comment appears utterly ignorant. I am confused about the nature of your question. Perhaps I am a bit slow, but I never recognized an instance where I would not still be the property of someone else. Giving one the right to vote in certain situations does not appear to be any kind of genuine liberation. Without any background information, it seems that one would still be a slave. Could you highlight what is problematic in my thinking.
SweetRandal 1 year ago
@SweetRandal Nozick basically believes that there should be only one law, something like that you may not initiate violence against another person. This would include messing with his property. The government itself would have to follow this law as well, so there would be no taxation (taking of property), no regulation (enforcing a regulation would be initiating a violence against a non-violent person), no laws against victimless crimes and so on.
androsphynx 1 year ago
@androsphynx "there would be no taxation"...I wonder where you would get funds for building roads, and pay basic services like polie, firemen, hospitals and education...
True freedom is unattainable...if it was possible to ahieve absolute freedom everyone would fly out of their houses like superman and wonder through space just for fun...anyway freedom although very limited, is something that is neither cultivated properly under democracy or anarchy...check out what is a timarchy...
trueVincent555 11 months ago
@trueVincent555 Just to be clear, I don't actually agree with Nozick's conclusions. I'm not a libertarian. I happen to think that Nozick was brilliant, and that someone thinking about political philosophy should be aware of his ideas.
A libertarian would believe that education, hospitals and the like would be run by private corporations. Police would still be a state role. Nozick didn't believe a perfect utopia was possible, just that libertarianism was as close as you could possibly get.
androsphynx 11 months ago
Your enslavement ceased when you get to vote and speak to influence the entire elecorate. Of course, no one is completely free. Clearly this pure democracy does not provide pure freedom. Says Nozick that it does?
PADRAEG 1 year ago
@PADRAEG The idea that your enslavement has ceased when you get to vote is the intuition he is challenging. He seems to be suggesting that pure democracy can be enslavement of everyone by everyone which is no better for the individual than enslavement by one.
androsphynx 1 year ago 6
im gonna find my master and kill him! one at a time.
echelonexcursions 2 years ago 2
We are all enslaved have been every since evolution started there has been "heads of territory (state)".
sevyb29 2 years ago
"good4usoul" I need you to come to a particular YouTube video And debate "God" with some of these science theorists! Please send me a personal message.
sevyb29 2 years ago
This tale is clearly within a paradigm that presupposed master-slave relations!
so means and ends with be the same, different mean will may bring about different ends!
FacultyZ 2 years ago
Libertarianism is fallacious.
One fallacy is treating liberty as an all-or-nothing proposition.
Another is treating the whole as nothing but the sum of its parts. Society is more than a collection of individual.
A third fallacy is it is utopian in nature. It assumes there must be a perfect state of liberty. Society is a compromise. That doesn't invalidate it.
A fourth fallacy is to assume proprietaritarianism (which is what it should call itself) would never infringe individual liberty.
yvanoseki 2 years ago
@yvanoseki
Another is treating the whole as nothing but the sum of its parts. Society is more than a collection of individual.
Really, when does this society form, how many people make up society. It literally makes no sense to say society is more than a collection of individual. Society is the collection of individuals and nothing more. What the hell magically develops. It like say the global population is more than the global population. A=/=A?
snoopyflick 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When Jesus was crucified, he did not ensure people would act in a manner to serve society's interest best. He acknowledged the truth: We should not do evil to prevent evil. Just as God left us free to do evil, but choose good, men must leave one another free to choose evil, but have faith they will choose good.
In the short run we should seek better communication, better understanding, more forgiving attitudes for error. These are all matters of obedience to Jesus Christ.
good4usoul 3 years ago
In the long run, all nations will have nuclear power. A private person will have the ability to travel to distant stars, and hence to destroy planets at a whim. He will choose not to, because of love; because it would be wrong. Not because we have ensured he wouldn't.
good4usoul 3 years ago 2
That is a strawman argument that Democracy makes everyone free. Are there no prisons in a Democratic Society? Of course there are non-free people in a Democracy. Those who would by their will choose to do what the majority have determined is criminal will not be free to do so.
Everyone serves something, whether voluntary or involuntary. And serving yourself alone is a dead hope. Serving the common good may not be perfect, but it is better than whateve Nozick had to offer.
good4usoul 3 years ago 2
So you do admit that democracy is an insufficient condition for a free society.
Very well, how do we best determine what is the common good? How do we best determine how to serve the common good? How do we ensure people will act in a manner that will serve society's interest best?
libertarianPinoy 3 years ago 2
Obviously it comes down to what you personally believe the common good to be.
This is why I have been an Anarchist, but not advocated Anarchy until recently. There must be an essential spiritual development in human beings.
For justice to exist people must behave in a mutually beneficial manner.
However the definition of what policy is mutually beneficial is reliant on the perception of the individual. A man must be enlightened in order to make sound actions.
Jcolinsol 3 years ago 2
Well, Nozick would not advocate for a "common good" per se. The common good is a utilitarian construction where one's individual rights may be infringed upon if the overall happiness (this word seems wrong) increases.
Nozickian philosophy proposes a morality through a series of side constraints unconcerned with what is "for the common good." These side constraints prohibit one from infringing upon another's individual rights. In this way no injustice is done to anyone.
mule51 1 year ago 6