We will see that this tradition rests on multiple key values that are often in tension. Our unifying thread will be the history of liberal republicanism, or “democracy,” the society in which the people are sovereign, and its major competitors. We will explore the roots of modern democracy the arguments for and against capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, anarchism, and communism issues of economic justice and the proper function of government warfare and ethics and such recent movements as feminism, multiculturalism, postmodernism, and environmentalism. This course will help us navigate the labyrinth, tracing modern Western political and social thought from the 16 th century to the end of the 20 th. And yet the great political ideas-freedom, equality, justice, rights, the common good-have been used in so many different ways as to be deeply confusing. Its major competitor in the 20 th century was designed by another philosopher, Karl Marx. A moral philosopher, Adam Smith, formulated the “invisible hand” that has guided our economic lives. Philosophers from Locke to Montesquieu to Jefferson essentially designed the modern democratic state. He power and danger of great political ideas cannot be overestimated.
Since procedural rights are incompatible with a natural executive right, Nozickeans can argue that only the state can enforce individuals' rights without wronging anyone, thus refuting the anarchist.
#ROBERT NOZICK 1974 HOW TO#
Nevertheless, Nozick's account of procedural rights contains clues for how to solve the problem. Compensation, however, cannot remedy the infringement, I argue, for either it is superfluous to Nozick's account of procedural rights, or it is made to play a role inconsistent with Nozick's liberal voluntarist commitments.
Nozick's argument relies on an account of compensation to remedy the infringement of the non-consenters' procedural rights. Nozick attempts to show that even with a natural executive right, individuals need not actually consent to incur political obligations. Individuals acting within their natural rights can establish the minimal state without committing wrongdoing against those who disagree. Central to Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" is a defense of the legitimacy of the minimal state's use of coercion against anarchist objections.
0 kommentar(er)
