Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Deus Ex Machina
New member
have you read the works of Robert Nozick? if so, what do you think of him? do you recommend any specific works of his?
atlantabiolab -- other libertarians
- Thread starter Deus Ex Machina
- Start date
A
Apöllo
Guest
Isn't he a sympathizer to poor people? Sounds like communism to me!
Russo for President!
http://www.russoforpresident.com
http://www.russoforpresident.com/issues.php?id=2
http://www.russoforpresident.com
http://www.russoforpresident.com/issues.php?id=2
Deus Ex Machina
New member
Apöllo said:
i don't know. i just heard vaguely about him -- that he 'made mainstream libertarian thought respectable'
i just wanted to get an opinion about him
atlantabiolab
New member
Deus Ex Machina said:
Nozick is a libertarian philosopher who has become pretty popular along the lines of his thoughts on "natural rights" and "social contract" theory. He is referenced heavily in Libertarian works due to his above work.
Along with Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Tibor Machan, and Milton Friedman are authors who present a Libertarian viewpoint.
juve
New member
Deus Ex Machina said:
yes yes, his works are a fundament of the modern-day libertarian theory. it is in essence very reflective of a critique of Rawls' Theory of justice, while offerin an alternative stream of development for conception of eqity.
I think of the modern day political philosophers his works, along with amartya sen, rawls, and maybe sandel/taylor (their scope is somewhat limited though)
collegiateLifter
New member
atlantabiolab said:
interesting that you left von Hayek out-- too sporadic?
atlantabiolab
New member
collegiateLifter said:
Nope. His "Road to Serfdom" is excellent. There are many other writer/thinkers that I did not mention.
Ayn Rand had very little respect for libertarians.
Synpax
Well-known member
Ayn Rand has little respect for libertarians because they have pathetically weak moral philosophy and plagerize Objectivism.
I've read many/most of the works of the people mentioned in this thread and find it mostly weak. Funny that some would object to Rand being mentioned but include Milton Freedman who advocates a minimum income.
I've read many/most of the works of the people mentioned in this thread and find it mostly weak. Funny that some would object to Rand being mentioned but include Milton Freedman who advocates a minimum income.
atlantabiolab
New member
Synpax said:
I have read all of them. I highly respect Rand's contribution to the fight againt the prevailing anti-rational philosophies of today and setting forth an ideology of reason.
I suggest that people read all of these authors, along with as many authors who are supportive of the opposing views: socialism/Marxism, anarchism, conservatism, etc. You are not knowledgeable until you know as much as possible, even the views of those you disagree with.
Tiervexx
New member
Synpax said:
Exactly what do you mean by “pathetically weak moral philosophy?” The only real moral absolute is not to harm the person or property (I think they are one in the same) of others. Many of the “morals” that social conservatives try to push are a complete joke because that unnecessary government intervention is a far greater evil than most of the things that are illegal today.
Ayn Rand was a smart woman and the basic foundation for her philosophy was very solid but some of her more complex interpretations were flawed. David D Friedman (Milton Friedman's son) did a good job of pointing out some of the holes in her logic.
Furthermore, Ayn Rand is hated by many libertarians because she presented herself as a raging bitch that seemed to have assisted that everyone takes every word she wrote as gospel. Her refusal to associate with libertarians was complete bullshit because objectivism REQUIRERS libertarianism even though libertarianism does not require everything that goes into objectivism.
The reason she and a few of her more dogmatic followers give for refusing to assonate with libertarians is that they think the political philosophy can not stand without the metaphysics and epistemology that she worked out. I think this is a mistake because it would likely become easier to spread those ideas after they have at least started to get the government out of the way.
Tiervexx
New member
Deus Ex Machina said:
I have not read anything he wrote but if you want a basic introduction into libertarianism I would suggest that you look into Harry Browne's work. He has a ton of great articals on his site. harry browne
Tiervexx
New member
slowtom said:
I am really exited about his dicision to run. If he gets into the debate (I know he probably won't but there is a chance) he WILL take a lot of votes away from both karry and bush. Any doubts that they are the same person, and any doubts over the direction that they want to take America will be blown away if peopel get to see Aaron talk next to the two of them.
Deus Ex Machina
New member
lately i've been reading a lot about kant and his theory on how morals apply to law.... and also been reading the about the utilitarian theory on how morals apply to law... i am more for kantianism though. utilitarian thought on human rights or laws sounds like socialism or communism. anyways, it's pretty cool stuff...
Last edited:
Tiervexx
New member
I almost forgot! Everyone should read this book.
Even if you are not religous (I'm not) Fredric makes many extremely strong points about the role of government in sociaty.
It was written in 1850 but it might as well have been written yesterday or ten years from now.
http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/the_law.htm
Even if you are not religous (I'm not) Fredric makes many extremely strong points about the role of government in sociaty.
It was written in 1850 but it might as well have been written yesterday or ten years from now.
http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/the_law.htm
collegiateLifter
New member
If you guys are gonna read all that philosophy, I highly recomend you read a book on Logical Empiricism. It's a fucked up philosophy imo, but it helped me realize that philosophy is only a system of logic and just about any conclusions can be reached depending on how you set up your system. Furthermore von Hayek's cousin, Wittgenstein, made some serrious contributions to it, though he was not actually part of the Vienna circle.
atlantabiolab
New member
collegiateLifter said:
And this is its failing. A system of reason which states that reason is useless is of no value to man's existence.
collegiateLifter
New member
atlantabiolab said:
have you read any logical empricist books?
It doesn't do that at all thoughit certainly dimunitizes the value of philosophers., Don't confuse the two.
Now that I think of it I should read some Wittgenstein soon.... he had some interesting wisdom on linguistics and thoughts....
atlantabiolab
New member
collegiateLifter said:
Not many "books" by recent empiricists, more articles and essays. Rority's pragmatist works, Daniel Dennit's determinate empiricism (evolutionary determinism), etc.
More works by the predecessors of modern empiricism, Bacon, Hume, Locke, etc.
collegiateLifter
New member
atlantabiolab said:
Perhaps I should call them by their more popular name though.... Logical Positivists.
