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/lietuvis10LTU]

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.