It seems if there is a huge number of people who are not willing to comply with principle 1 & 2, then size of the government also has to increase in proportion ad infinitum. Nozick's argument seems to be grounded on the assumption that a society has already reached equilibrium and that the property laws themselves are not in dispute.
I see two gray areas in the entitlement theory. The first is the problem of what is defined by protecting the life and liberty of people. Does that mean only protecting someone from death? Or does it include injury? In which case, does harming people by poisoning the air or water with pollution count? There are numerous other examples. Drawing the line at what it considered harm does not seem clear to me in the minarchist principles I've read about. The other gray area is prevention vs. restitution. A small government can only be reactive. It takes a large government to implement prevention. Example: If you make a product with a feature (or flaw) that can injure people, a small government could only enforce restitution when you product causes harm. This could encourage you to make a product that injures just enough people for you to pay out acceptable losses without burdening you with the cost of safety features, excessive product testing, etc. People who support large government want the gov to enforce laws that prevent you from making a dangerous product in the first place because the general public has a lower threshold for acceptable losses than you do. Also, it can be difficult to prove wrong-doing after the fact. People who support large government would prefer a more expensive method of prevention rather than taking the chance that restitution cannot be enforced due to lack of evidence/conviction/etc.
In fact, the Lockean clause can be quite refuted as follows: "an appropriation is admitted as long as it does not involve an aggravation of the situation of others". Let us consider that it tries to support itself as a solution that applies to all scenarios, but the problem is that it pretends to convince us that its application is practical for all cases. In fact, the clause implicitly contains two independent (appropriation) situations, in which only one fully complies with the clause: 1. If a right is violated, someone's situation is worsened. 2. If no one's situation is worsened, no right is violated. We must consider both situations as two different moments in the history of appropriation, the only way in which the clause is respected is when the appropriation itself does not worsen the situation of the other (S2), but Nozick wants us to think that even if an appropriation significantly worsened the right of another (S1), is admissible because it was somehow compensated, the point is that nothing changes the fact that a right was violated, and worse, not only did it take away one's immediate right over the thing but also the right one has to exercise his freedom by taking sides about one's future. Another thing, the clause contradicts his claim about the theory as a historical principle, since, as you can see, it ignores the initial conditions of appropriation and only takes into account a later event to define its justice in the matter.
Where do you find land that doesn’t belong to anyone? Like the people from the uk who sailed to the America’s n named everything as theirs? Ridiculous..
The problem that I have with this is that if you actually take the logic to its logical end, it supposedly entails the abolishment of the state. And the problems that I have with small government is that at the end of the day, under immense pressure and the complexities of the modern world, a bigger government is necessary to address the problems entailing the modern world, and the founding fathers of America knew that as well, because prior to the Constitution being passed, the US was governed under the articles of confederation. The articles of confederation provided for a very weak central government, and because of that, it was practically powerless and unable to effectively govern, and because of that, the founding fathers passed the Constitution, in order to provide for a much stronger central government.
What makes you think that a small central planning clique of bureaucrats knows how to deal with those problems better than the combined ingenuity of all society? What gives them the right to try on behalf of everyone else, anyway?
@@heinz8233 Will you apply that logic to private companies as well?. Because if you are, then you're advocating for a democratisation of the workplace which is a marxist idea. I am in favour of a bigger role of central government is because alot of people have competing ideas of how to run a country, and it would lead to disorder and anarchy if you allow that.
@@TheKnowledgeMan101 Yeah sure, how could you allow that? Other people having opinions???? People just don't know any better, they need a director. It's better to do everything one way. My way. At gunpoint. Regarding companies and democratization, unlike a country a company is private property, with no monopoly on violence, and no say over the lives of every citizen. A company can't force its will, and fails if it doesn't engage in consensual commerce. You can choose not to deal with another person and his property, but you can't say the same for the government. Democracy doesn't fix that extreme imbalance of power btw.
@@heinz8233 Sure, the government has a monopoly on violence, but it doesn't have a monopoly on oppression. And this is one of the issues that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had with Capitalism, is that it instills a form of slavery. Meaning that Capitalists will prey on the need for humans to find work and threaten to fire them if they don't comply, many workers can't afford to leave their job because finding another job is difficult to near impossible (especially in this economy we have right now), and because of that, the workers are forced to stay with the company and they can't do anything about it as they are threatened by their employers of being fired if they refuse to obey what the corporate leaders want
Why was the government under the articles of confederation weak and practically powerless? Once you have that answer, create a government just large enough to solve the problem without adding anything more than necessary. I think minarchists believe there is a middle-ground between ineffective and over-sized.
The free-er the market the higher the p_verty. The higher the p_verty the more worker organization and unrest. The more worker organization and unrest the more state viol_nce against workers. The more "libertarian" a society is the more t_talitarian/a_thoritarian it becomes by necessity. Also, "free market" is a minsnomer that actually means "unbridled capitalist tyranny and privilege."
The anarchists (not just minarchists) I've talked to truly believe that charity work will help those who are in need. We currently have a large government that helps the needy yet lots of charities currently exist. Without government, people will get to keep the third of their money currently taken by government (taxes) and they can spend it on whatever they want. Those who want to help the needy can still give to charity as they wish - more importantly, they can give to the charities they feel are justified. If you are one of those who think that some of the needy are just lazy, they can choose to not support welfare and instead support the cure of cancer or whatever. I personally believe that leaving it to charities and people's generosity is not the solution but I think it is important to note that anarchists are not heartless and believe their solution is adequate.
The Proviso is much more damaging to Nozick's entitlement theory and he even expands on it himself in ASU. If you have, say, 20 apples and 21 persons, then obviously the 20th person couldn't take the last apple justly as it would lead to the 21th person having no apple at all, sure. But the fact that the 20th person couldn't take the last apple means that the acquisition of the 19th apple by the 19th person was unjust as well as it left the 20th as well as the 21th person unable to acquire any apples justly and so on and so on until the acquisition of the first apple by the first person being unjust as well. It renders pretty much any just acquisition virtually impossible. Nozick tries to circumvent this issue in one of the corresponding footnotes by evoking a sort of consequentialist argument that there would actually be less apples in total if no private property would exist but this is, on the one hand, quite a damaging argument for Nozick's whole project which is primarily a deontologic and natural rights kind of approach, as he wholeheartedly rejects any consequentialist justification of rights (e.g. property) in the very first chapters of ASU. On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily mean that private property couldn't exist but only that the theft of opportunity for others through acquisition of, well, anything would have to be compensated for. Funnily enough, Nozick's book made me a unwavering proponent of property taxes by critizizing its own concepts which I give Nozick credit for as it distinguishes him as an intellectually honest philosopher.
Given the choices of monopoly versus general distribution (even if a minority must go without), I think most people would agree that general distribution is the better option. Now the question is WHO must go without and I am interested to know how Nozicks and anti-Nozicks address that issue. I think Nozicks would say that it is first come first serve, but I don't know for sure.
I'd like to look at this from a real world perspective, more than just how just or philosophically sound it is, does it actually work? I'd argue that a society that has social redistribution of wealth is a better society, and thus this philosophy doesn't hold up to practice. Is a country that does not have free public education better than those that do? I don't know anyone who would argue that, well apparently Nozick would.
For someone who claims to care about actual results you have correlations all mixed up. North Korea has complete wealth redistribution. On the other hand Sweden and the Netherlands are very unequal countries. You tell me which you prefer.
@@heinz8233 Incorrect. North korea takes the wealth of citizens and distributes to none but the ruling class. Sweden and the netherlands have significant wealth redistribution and social spending. I don't have any idea how you do not know this. Sweden has a highest tax bracket over 50%, Netherlands at 49. This is as opposed to Brazil's of 27. You may want to try again.
@@timothywilliams8530 you didn't prove me wrong on anything. Sweden and the Netherlands are very unequal countries, look it up, the top 1% is extremely wealthy. North korea has 100% wealth redistribution, how they distribute it is a consequence of that, but it doesn't change the fact that it has a high wealth redistribution, which you said was good.
@@heinz8233 By no one's definition is a dictator's wealth hoarding be redistribution. Read my comment again, SOCIAL redistribution of wealth. Stop reading your own bias into MY words.
@@timothywilliams8530 What makes you think that "redistribution of wealth" is not tied to the whims of whoever is in power? That's literally why redistribution of wealth is such a dangerous concept. I just brought up NK to make a point.
To that last counterpoint, there are a few responses. Libertarians writ large tend to recognize the Lockean Proviso as something that is too vague to fully apply, especially when one looks at the language of "as good" and "as much" in the context of marginalist value theory. Some interpretations--to offset some of the issues that you brought up earlier--allow for the Proviso to be applied, but only in a specific way that would negate the ascension of a bigger state. Georgist LVT, Mutualist usufruct and rent abolition, and even just a very, very strict reading of the Homesteading Principle itself (one which would dismiss Intellectual Property, ownership of things beyond what your labor has the capacity to create, and even Commons/Public property) are just a few of the ways to apply Locke's Proviso beyond its directly vague implications.
In this case, they might argue that such a monopoly on a vital resource like water is highly unlikely in a truly free market. Instead, there would be incentives for others to find alternative sources of water or to create new technologies for water extraction or purification. This competition would diminish the power of the single water owner. Everything could be answered through Murray Rothbard's books
That final criticism is dealt with by Nozick (pointing out we have laws in place and courts that regulate competing claims of ownership and theft), and David Schmidtz's article 'The Institution of Property' defends the Lockean Proviso arguing that 'late comers' who are prevented from 'original acquisition' are actually most often beneficiaries, inheriting the improvements to property that originators leave behind.
If you own all the apples, or all the water or a life saving drug is a non-sequitur. None of those examples are realistic. There is always more water, more food options, more drug development technology around. Particularly in a free economy
@@heinz8233 Not all, but an overwhelming majority of it. In 1890, they controlled 88% of all the refined oil flow in the country, and in 1904, about 91% of the oil flow and 85% of the final pricing
@@TheKnowledgeMan101 that's not a monopoly, as demonstrated by the fact that their market share dropped to 64% in less than a decade *because they were subject to competition*
There's a quote I like about minarchism: "The problem with the minimal state such as that advocated by Nozick, is that it is never minimal in practice: on the contrary, a state which preoccupies itself with security functions - military and police force - is in fact highly interventionist, intrusive and authoritarian. The libertarian minimal state always ends up as a Leviathan state."
I reject free market monopolies as criticism, they just don't exist. 99,9% of monopolies exist, are created and are maintained through the state, period. The free market, if actually left to it's own devices, will always end up outcompeting a monopoly. I can't even think of a single case of market monopoly right now in fact.
So any of the monopolies which occur naturally don't occur?. Then what the f is amazon then?. Also, what about the oil industry under John D. Rockefeller?
@@TheKnowledgeMan101 Do you know what a monopoly is? Standard oil had a 60% market share when the government broke it up. Amazon has a 38% market share. Monopoly doesn't mean big company, monopoly means that a company has no competition. Standard Oil had plenty of competition, Amazon operates in probably THE most competitive market. They are good at what they do and people buy from them because the service is good. What's the problem? You are free to go and buy from another seller, or open your own business.
Monopolies and cartels emerged when the state didn't regulate to the same capacity as it does now. What you're saying is ahistorical. Yes, monopolies emerged with state assistance that assistance being not enforcing and or axing regulations preventing monopolies from forming. Also, markets cannot function without a state. Markets left to their own devices are highly turbulent and ravaging to the working population. The state is needed to tame the market to a degree and enforce property rights.
@@G.Bfit.93 You are so wrong on so many levels, but the most glaring is the cognitive dissonance of acknowledging that monopolies are bad, and yet advocating for empowering the biggest monopoly of them all.
Not the greatest point at the end tbh. Opposite doctrines assert there is no limit to this attitude (government, bureaucracy), so the Nozick version of this cannot be worse on principle. It's like complaining about having bruises after a fistfight while the alternative is being wounded by a gun.
There's certainly other theories that at least claim to be better on principle. For example, something like anarcho-communism (which I personally don't support, I am using it purely for the sake of argument) claims that voluntary cooperation in which people contribute according to their ability and receive according to their needs would offer the freedom of common benefit without the use of government or market forces. My point here is that stating there is no better alternative is something that requires heavy discussion (in order to prove that you're working from an empirical framework and not just asserting ideological superiority of the doctrine you're defending) and the lack of consensus on that topic necessitates more of an argument than simply stating that other doctrines would be worse on the principles discussed in this video. Edit: I'd also like to add that these aren't meant to be particularly strong arguments, they're meant to simply promote discussion.
These little theories on some sort of palatable, presumably more practical utopian society really are pathetic. I'm not a socialist at all, but after listening to some of these exceedingly shallow and banal, almost childlike 'theories', that are so desperate to hold onto the institution of private property, you really do sympathize. It's appalling how stupid and selfish and awful hese are. And these are from brand-name philosophers, the real luminaries. Those I've never heard of this dude.
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 ธันวาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dNTiBBthKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
You guys basically became my second thesis adviser. Thank you so much!
You're welcome, glad we could hep.
We absolutely need a super long video at some point! It would be so cool if the debate got really, really nuanced.
It seems if there is a huge number of people who are not willing to comply with principle 1 & 2, then size of the government also has to increase in proportion ad infinitum.
Nozick's argument seems to be grounded on the assumption that a society has already reached equilibrium and that the property laws themselves are not in dispute.
Fantastic outline.
I see two gray areas in the entitlement theory. The first is the problem of what is defined by protecting the life and liberty of people. Does that mean only protecting someone from death? Or does it include injury? In which case, does harming people by poisoning the air or water with pollution count? There are numerous other examples. Drawing the line at what it considered harm does not seem clear to me in the minarchist principles I've read about. The other gray area is prevention vs. restitution. A small government can only be reactive. It takes a large government to implement prevention. Example: If you make a product with a feature (or flaw) that can injure people, a small government could only enforce restitution when you product causes harm. This could encourage you to make a product that injures just enough people for you to pay out acceptable losses without burdening you with the cost of safety features, excessive product testing, etc. People who support large government want the gov to enforce laws that prevent you from making a dangerous product in the first place because the general public has a lower threshold for acceptable losses than you do. Also, it can be difficult to prove wrong-doing after the fact. People who support large government would prefer a more expensive method of prevention rather than taking the chance that restitution cannot be enforced due to lack of evidence/conviction/etc.
Thought-provoking!!
Thumbs up man, you're doing a really amazing job.
At least i could get to understand complex philosophical dialogue and arguments.
In fact, the Lockean clause can be quite refuted as follows: "an appropriation is admitted as long as it does not involve an aggravation of the situation of others". Let us consider that it tries to support itself as a solution that applies to all scenarios, but the problem is that it pretends to convince us that its application is practical for all cases. In fact, the clause implicitly contains two independent (appropriation) situations, in which only one fully complies with the clause:
1. If a right is violated, someone's situation is worsened.
2. If no one's situation is worsened, no right is violated.
We must consider both situations as two different moments in the history of appropriation, the only way in which the clause is respected is when the appropriation itself does not worsen the situation of the other (S2), but Nozick wants us to think that even if an appropriation significantly worsened the right of another (S1), is admissible because it was somehow compensated, the point is that nothing changes the fact that a right was violated, and worse, not only did it take away one's immediate right over the thing but also the right one has to exercise his freedom by taking sides about one's future.
Another thing, the clause contradicts his claim about the theory as a historical principle, since, as you can see, it ignores the initial conditions of appropriation and only takes into account a later event to define its justice in the matter.
Where do you find land that doesn’t belong to anyone? Like the people from the uk who sailed to the America’s n named everything as theirs? Ridiculous..
Exactly!
Thank you so much, love the videos.
2024 viewer.. too much helpful.
Iam very interested to watch.sir please upload more ❤
next level explanation of the topic
Sir please upload distribution justice and procedural justice with example
This is really helpful! Thanks!
You're welcome.
what does he say at 13:20 ? free market micist? mini...
minarchist
The problem that I have with this is that if you actually take the logic to its logical end, it supposedly entails the abolishment of the state. And the problems that I have with small government is that at the end of the day, under immense pressure and the complexities of the modern world, a bigger government is necessary to address the problems entailing the modern world, and the founding fathers of America knew that as well, because prior to the Constitution being passed, the US was governed under the articles of confederation. The articles of confederation provided for a very weak central government, and because of that, it was practically powerless and unable to effectively govern, and because of that, the founding fathers passed the Constitution, in order to provide for a much stronger central government.
What makes you think that a small central planning clique of bureaucrats knows how to deal with those problems better than the combined ingenuity of all society? What gives them the right to try on behalf of everyone else, anyway?
@@heinz8233 Will you apply that logic to private companies as well?. Because if you are, then you're advocating for a democratisation of the workplace which is a marxist idea. I am in favour of a bigger role of central government is because alot of people have competing ideas of how to run a country, and it would lead to disorder and anarchy if you allow that.
@@TheKnowledgeMan101 Yeah sure, how could you allow that? Other people having opinions???? People just don't know any better, they need a director. It's better to do everything one way. My way. At gunpoint.
Regarding companies and democratization, unlike a country a company is private property, with no monopoly on violence, and no say over the lives of every citizen. A company can't force its will, and fails if it doesn't engage in consensual commerce. You can choose not to deal with another person and his property, but you can't say the same for the government. Democracy doesn't fix that extreme imbalance of power btw.
@@heinz8233 Sure, the government has a monopoly on violence, but it doesn't have a monopoly on oppression. And this is one of the issues that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had with Capitalism, is that it instills a form of slavery. Meaning that Capitalists will prey on the need for humans to find work and threaten to fire them if they don't comply, many workers can't afford to leave their job because finding another job is difficult to near impossible (especially in this economy we have right now), and because of that, the workers are forced to stay with the company and they can't do anything about it as they are threatened by their employers of being fired if they refuse to obey what the corporate leaders want
Why was the government under the articles of confederation weak and practically powerless? Once you have that answer, create a government just large enough to solve the problem without adding anything more than necessary. I think minarchists believe there is a middle-ground between ineffective and over-sized.
The free-er the market the higher the p_verty. The higher the p_verty the more worker organization and unrest. The more worker organization and unrest the more state viol_nce against workers.
The more "libertarian" a society is the more t_talitarian/a_thoritarian it becomes by necessity. Also, "free market" is a minsnomer that actually means "unbridled capitalist tyranny and privilege."
The anarchists (not just minarchists) I've talked to truly believe that charity work will help those who are in need. We currently have a large government that helps the needy yet lots of charities currently exist. Without government, people will get to keep the third of their money currently taken by government (taxes) and they can spend it on whatever they want. Those who want to help the needy can still give to charity as they wish - more importantly, they can give to the charities they feel are justified. If you are one of those who think that some of the needy are just lazy, they can choose to not support welfare and instead support the cure of cancer or whatever. I personally believe that leaving it to charities and people's generosity is not the solution but I think it is important to note that anarchists are not heartless and believe their solution is adequate.
why are you censoring words like poverty and totalitarian? So strange
@user-gb6vx4oj2w TH-cam won't allow me to say them
@@user-gb6vx4oj2w if I said them you wouldn't see my reply
Nice 👍
Thank you
The Proviso is much more damaging to Nozick's entitlement theory and he even expands on it himself in ASU. If you have, say, 20 apples and 21 persons, then obviously the 20th person couldn't take the last apple justly as it would lead to the 21th person having no apple at all, sure. But the fact that the 20th person couldn't take the last apple means that the acquisition of the 19th apple by the 19th person was unjust as well as it left the 20th as well as the 21th person unable to acquire any apples justly and so on and so on until the acquisition of the first apple by the first person being unjust as well. It renders pretty much any just acquisition virtually impossible.
Nozick tries to circumvent this issue in one of the corresponding footnotes by evoking a sort of consequentialist argument that there would actually be less apples in total if no private property would exist but this is, on the one hand, quite a damaging argument for Nozick's whole project which is primarily a deontologic and natural rights kind of approach, as he wholeheartedly rejects any consequentialist justification of rights (e.g. property) in the very first chapters of ASU. On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily mean that private property couldn't exist but only that the theft of opportunity for others through acquisition of, well, anything would have to be compensated for.
Funnily enough, Nozick's book made me a unwavering proponent of property taxes by critizizing its own concepts which I give Nozick credit for as it distinguishes him as an intellectually honest philosopher.
Given the choices of monopoly versus general distribution (even if a minority must go without), I think most people would agree that general distribution is the better option. Now the question is WHO must go without and I am interested to know how Nozicks and anti-Nozicks address that issue. I think Nozicks would say that it is first come first serve, but I don't know for sure.
I've actually never read that view on Nozick's entitlement theory, thank you.
I'd like to look at this from a real world perspective, more than just how just or philosophically sound it is, does it actually work? I'd argue that a society that has social redistribution of wealth is a better society, and thus this philosophy doesn't hold up to practice. Is a country that does not have free public education better than those that do? I don't know anyone who would argue that, well apparently Nozick would.
For someone who claims to care about actual results you have correlations all mixed up. North Korea has complete wealth redistribution. On the other hand Sweden and the Netherlands are very unequal countries. You tell me which you prefer.
@@heinz8233 Incorrect. North korea takes the wealth of citizens and distributes to none but the ruling class.
Sweden and the netherlands have significant wealth redistribution and social spending. I don't have any idea how you do not know this.
Sweden has a highest tax bracket over 50%, Netherlands at 49. This is as opposed to Brazil's of 27. You may want to try again.
@@timothywilliams8530 you didn't prove me wrong on anything. Sweden and the Netherlands are very unequal countries, look it up, the top 1% is extremely wealthy. North korea has 100% wealth redistribution, how they distribute it is a consequence of that, but it doesn't change the fact that it has a high wealth redistribution, which you said was good.
@@heinz8233 By no one's definition is a dictator's wealth hoarding be redistribution.
Read my comment again, SOCIAL redistribution of wealth. Stop reading your own bias into MY words.
@@timothywilliams8530 What makes you think that "redistribution of wealth" is not tied to the whims of whoever is in power? That's literally why redistribution of wealth is such a dangerous concept. I just brought up NK to make a point.
To that last counterpoint, there are a few responses. Libertarians writ large tend to recognize the Lockean Proviso as something that is too vague to fully apply, especially when one looks at the language of "as good" and "as much" in the context of marginalist value theory. Some interpretations--to offset some of the issues that you brought up earlier--allow for the Proviso to be applied, but only in a specific way that would negate the ascension of a bigger state. Georgist LVT, Mutualist usufruct and rent abolition, and even just a very, very strict reading of the Homesteading Principle itself (one which would dismiss Intellectual Property, ownership of things beyond what your labor has the capacity to create, and even Commons/Public property) are just a few of the ways to apply Locke's Proviso beyond its directly vague implications.
In this case, they might argue that such a monopoly on a vital resource like water is highly unlikely in a truly free market. Instead, there would be incentives for others to find alternative sources of water or to create new technologies for water extraction or purification. This competition would diminish the power of the single water owner.
Everything could be answered through Murray Rothbard's books
❤
I would settle for a smaller state, less tax, fewer public services, strong borders and individual responsibility restored as a virtue.
That final criticism is dealt with by Nozick (pointing out we have laws in place and courts that regulate competing claims of ownership and theft), and David Schmidtz's article 'The Institution of Property' defends the Lockean Proviso arguing that 'late comers' who are prevented from 'original acquisition' are actually most often beneficiaries, inheriting the improvements to property that originators leave behind.
The surfer sounding guy on the left is always ending up the one educating the guy on the right
If you own all the apples, or all the water or a life saving drug is a non-sequitur. None of those examples are realistic. There is always more water, more food options, more drug development technology around. Particularly in a free economy
Then what about oil?. Back then, John D. Rockefeller held a natural monopoly on all the oil in the US though his company "Standard Oil"
@@TheKnowledgeMan101 Standard Oil didn't have a natural monopoly on all oil lmfao.
@@heinz8233 Not all, but an overwhelming majority of it. In 1890, they controlled 88% of all the refined oil flow in the country, and in 1904, about 91% of the oil flow and 85% of the final pricing
@@TheKnowledgeMan101 that's not a monopoly, as demonstrated by the fact that their market share dropped to 64% in less than a decade *because they were subject to competition*
@@heinz8233 About the same time that they were convicted of violating anti trust laws. I'm talking about before the anti trust laws
There's a quote I like about minarchism: "The problem with the minimal state such as that advocated by Nozick, is that it is never minimal in practice: on the contrary, a state which preoccupies itself with security functions - military and police force - is in fact highly interventionist, intrusive and authoritarian. The libertarian minimal state always ends up as a Leviathan state."
this is called a slippery slope i do not agree
Do you know who's the author of the quote and the book/source it's cited from? Thanks in advance.
Ayn Rand pretty much explains all this clearly in Capitalism, the unknown ideal
I reject free market monopolies as criticism, they just don't exist. 99,9% of monopolies exist, are created and are maintained through the state, period. The free market, if actually left to it's own devices, will always end up outcompeting a monopoly. I can't even think of a single case of market monopoly right now in fact.
So any of the monopolies which occur naturally don't occur?. Then what the f is amazon then?. Also, what about the oil industry under John D. Rockefeller?
@@TheKnowledgeMan101 Do you know what a monopoly is? Standard oil had a 60% market share when the government broke it up. Amazon has a 38% market share. Monopoly doesn't mean big company, monopoly means that a company has no competition. Standard Oil had plenty of competition, Amazon operates in probably THE most competitive market.
They are good at what they do and people buy from them because the service is good. What's the problem? You are free to go and buy from another seller, or open your own business.
@@TheKnowledgeMan101 railway barrons
Monopolies and cartels emerged when the state didn't regulate to the same capacity as it does now. What you're saying is ahistorical. Yes, monopolies emerged with state assistance that assistance being not enforcing and or axing regulations preventing monopolies from forming. Also, markets cannot function without a state. Markets left to their own devices are highly turbulent and ravaging to the working population. The state is needed to tame the market to a degree and enforce property rights.
@@G.Bfit.93 You are so wrong on so many levels, but the most glaring is the cognitive dissonance of acknowledging that monopolies are bad, and yet advocating for empowering the biggest monopoly of them all.
This is the problem with libertarians. They want to get rid of big government but end up reinventing it in their theories lmao
That is right libertarians. There is a difference.
Would be better if there was a genuine second person asking question and not the same person pretending to be someone else. Good content though.
Not the greatest point at the end tbh. Opposite doctrines assert there is no limit to this attitude (government, bureaucracy), so the Nozick version of this cannot be worse on principle. It's like complaining about having bruises after a fistfight while the alternative is being wounded by a gun.
There's certainly other theories that at least claim to be better on principle. For example, something like anarcho-communism (which I personally don't support, I am using it purely for the sake of argument) claims that voluntary cooperation in which people contribute according to their ability and receive according to their needs would offer the freedom of common benefit without the use of government or market forces.
My point here is that stating there is no better alternative is something that requires heavy discussion (in order to prove that you're working from an empirical framework and not just asserting ideological superiority of the doctrine you're defending) and the lack of consensus on that topic necessitates more of an argument than simply stating that other doctrines would be worse on the principles discussed in this video.
Edit: I'd also like to add that these aren't meant to be particularly strong arguments, they're meant to simply promote discussion.
You should swap out the gentleman on the left for an AI voiceover. His voice is so grating and his script reading is distractingly unnatural.
These little theories on some sort of palatable, presumably more practical utopian society really are pathetic. I'm not a socialist at all, but after listening to some of these exceedingly shallow and banal, almost childlike 'theories', that are so desperate to hold onto the institution of private property, you really do sympathize. It's appalling how stupid and selfish and awful hese are. And these are from brand-name philosophers, the real luminaries. Those I've never heard of this dude.
You don't even need taxes to help the poor in a modern economy that runs on fiat currency.
Are you arguing for plain unrestricted money printing to help the poor?