Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Episode #138 ... Robert Nozick - The Minimal State (Patreon)

Published:
2020-01-21 13:30:28
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • nozick.mp3

Missing 1 full-res photo, 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Today we discuss Robert Nozick and his famous work Anarchy, State and Utopia. 


Your support is the only way the show keeps going. Thank you for everything you do. 


- Stephen

Files

Previews only

Comments

Amr Sobhy

Thank you so much Stephen for doing this!

Rob B

Nozick's definition of harm seems conveniently limited to only direct immediate harm, and ignores negative unintended effects of seemingly non-harmful actions. The interchangeable use of "legal", "moral", and "just" also assumes some sort of idealized system of generating laws. Saying that if each of the steps taken was just, then the consequence must be just, implies a definition of just where consequences of actions aren't considered.

Paul Zickler
>>31524153

Exactly. I would go further and suggest that "unintended" is too kind a word. When oil companies made tens of billions of dollars "legally" while fully aware they were helping to create catastrophic climate change, could it be called "unintended" consequences?

Ben

Few questions about this. First, what stops someone from saying people are entitled to water, food, and housing? (which I happen to believe). Second, what if you created family wealth through legal but unjust means? America wealth was built on the back of slaves. Would slaves be just to forcefully take back the wealth which was stolen from them by the force of the slaveholder and state? Third, if independent actors with large wealth advocate for lower regulations. The actor then makes more money because of that cut he advocated for. Then a catastrophe results from the regulatory cuts, are the actors who pushed for those cuts entitled to keep the money they accumulated? Are the victims of the catastrophe entitled to anything? No law was broken, but many lives would and have been broken from those actors. Loved the episode, but Nozick comes across to me as a thinker who would let the world burn (continue to burn) if the alternative was being mean to rich folks

Alex McDermott

Fabulous show Stephen, and great episode. I'm full of admiration as to how you take such freaking enorrrmous debates, ideas, arguments and concepts... and then distill it down to such powerfully intelligible narration. You're running across an extraordinarily diverse range of thinkers, and you're really good at 'leaning in' to their own particular thought, trying to understand and relate their own particular point of view. Kudos! And P.S., loving this political philosophy series yr doing. Keep them coming!

philosophizethis
>>31619668

You get what I’m going for! :) Thank you for being a nuanced thinker and for being charitable towards the show!

Matt H
>>31538036

There also doesn't seem to be any consideration for the fact that people can now influence legislation if they have enough money through lobbyists. Something that was once illegal can now be made legal with enough money. That's how you end up with an opiate crisis.

Neil Van Der Ploeg

Yes - this is something I think you do bloody well Stephen. You do a great job at switching in and out of peoples shoes. You must have some funky feet! You clearly put a lot of thought in, which is greatly appreciated!

Simon Baré

Interesting and informative. I was intrigued by the discussion on anarchy although it seemed the notion of anarchy he discusses is bait that which anarchist suggest but rather a self interested form of right wing Libertarianism. Where is the mutualism the collectivism ? Thanks for going down this path. Looking forward to more.