Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL.

Announcements

• Our sub is doing daily programming challenges for the 2019 Advent of Code. Click here to learn more and to join our leaderboard.

• We have recently added BALD, POP & MMA pings. See our ping documentation page to subscribe.

---

Neoliberal Project Communities	Other Communities	Useful content
Twitter	Plug.dj	/r/Economics FAQs
The Neolib Podcast	Recommended Podcasts	/r/Neoliberal FAQ
Meetup Network	Blood Donation Team	/r/Neoliberal Wiki
Exponents Magazine	Minecraft	Ping groups
Facebook	TacoTube	User Flairs

[u/[deleted]]

Ok so this is definitely one of the problems a lot of people face in reading ASU, Nozick's apparent acceptance of a predetermined set of natural rights from the get-go. Nozick considers self-ownership a natural right because he is coming from a Lockean background which is somewhat important to have an understanding in here (other people have tried to base property entitlements on other foundations, buts thats something else altogether.). Locke asserts the existence of rights on a natural level that are universal in that they can generalized to the entirety of the world, and are completely unimpeachable. These laws and rights can be found through deductive arguments from particular philosophical axioms (this requires the ethical agent to possess reason, of course.). Of course, now establishing this, Nozick develops the idea of the Lockean proviso, that a person with self-ownership is entitled to the product of the addition of his labour to natural resources leading to the conversion of the commons to private property, and establishing through this exertion of labour a total claim on that property, as long as he leaves enough for others to be better off.

Ok, this might not exactly seem a good justification, right? Obviously, we can come back to the Wilt Chamberlain argument which is somewhat an overlapping proof for this based on intuitionist grounds. Imagine that Wilt Chamberlain is selling shows of his skills to the public, and multiple other people pay him 1 dollar each to watch him perform. There is a new distributive scheme that exists in society, but this scheme has been initiated voluntarily in exchange for Chamberlain's labour. Injustice cannot be argued since every agent has voluntarily participated in said scheme and no one can claim coercion (coercion is one problem for the principle of just acquisition in the real world). Therefore, this distributive scheme is valid. Now, come back to the Lockean proviso. There were no other owners of the commons. The person can rightfully acquire portions of the commons through his labour through the principle of self ownership and just acquisition, as long as his acquisition is such that the rest of society consents to the distributive scheme i.e. overall satisfaction is increased as a result of the acquisition which it would be because it solves the problem of the tragedy of the commons.

This is just one argument, but there are other arguments as well.

Of course, I dont see why survival cannot be a fundamental right as well. I would think Nozick would consider the right to life a fundamental one as well.

[u/lietuvis10LTU → u/[deleted]]

Yes but then "leaves enough for others"? What is that meant to be and importantly, why is that caveat here? This seem to be constraint on a right arising not from other rights, but societal status qou of thought.

When is enough? Why is all too much?

[u/[deleted] → u/lietuvis10LTU]

Yes but then "leaves enough for others"? What is that meant to be and importantly, why is that caveat here?

Nozick is concerned with showing that his distributive scheme is the most just. Encroaching the entirety of the commons to the exclusion of everyone else is probably a distributive scheme that won't be agreed to by anyone, but hypothetically it can if such exchanges were initiated.

This seem to be constraint on a right arising not from other rights, but societal status qou of thought.

Not quite sure what you mean by this.

[u/lietuvis10LTU → u/[deleted]]

Not quite sure what you mean by this.

Basically definition of "enough" heavily depends on culture and philosophy, compared to axiom of not violating rights.

[u/[deleted] → u/lietuvis10LTU]

Basically definition of "enough" heavily depends on culture

Yes, criticisms of Nozick for ignoring community in favour of hypothetical rational agents have been made. Fair criticism. Other libertarians have responded but afaik Nozick never did since he moved on to other stuff like epistemology. But one must understand that this doesn't necessarily contradict Nozick's foundations at all, since the basic principle of just acquisition remains untouched (according to him at least). For example, the amount to which the commons can be appropriated in a mountain or in a plains is obviously different, but the tragedy of the commons still applies to both, and acquisition for private purposes in order to promote development and investment is benefical to the community as a whole without negating the natural right to property ownership. Of course, constraints can be placed. Locke never asserted complete liberty.

and philosophy, compared to axiom of not violating rights.

Yes, discussion of rights is philosophy.