Search results for 'Libertarianism' (try it on Scholar)

533 found
Sort by:
  1. M. Almeida & Lucky Libertarianism (2003). Jonathan Cohen/Color: A Functionalist Proposal 1–42 Ray Buchanan/Are Truth and Reference Quasi-Disquotational? 43–75 Matthew Davidson/Presentism and the Non-Present 77–92. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 113:291-292.score: 30.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Markus E. Schlosser (2014). The Luck Argument Against Event-Causal Libertarianism: It is Here to Stay. Philosophical Studies 167 (2):375-385.score: 24.0
    The luck argument raises a serious challenge for libertarianism about free will. In broad outline, if an action is undetermined, then it appears to be a matter of luck whether or not one performs it. And if it is a matter of luck whether or not one performs an action, then it seems that the action is not performed with free will. This argument is most effective against event-causal accounts of libertarianism. Recently, Franklin (Philosophical Studies 156:199–230, 2011) has (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. M. Almeida & M. Bernstein (2003). Lucky Libertarianism. Philosophical Studies 22 (2):93-119.score: 24.0
    Perhaps the greatest impediment to a viable libertarianism is the provision of a satisfactory explanation of how actions that are undetermined by an agent''s character can still be under the control of, or up to, the agent. The luck problem has been most assiduously examined by Robert Kane who supplies a detailed account of how this problem can be resolved. Although Kane''s theory is innovative, insightful, and more resourceful than most of his critics believe, it ultimately cannot account for (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Manuel Vargas (2004). Libertarianism and Skepticism About Free Will: Some Arguments Against Both. Philosophical Topics 32 (1&2):403-26.score: 24.0
    In this paper I criticize libertarianism and skepticism about free will. The criticism of libertarianism takes some steps towards filling in an argument that is often mentioned but seldom developed in any detail, the argument that libertarianism is a scientifically implausible view. I say "take some steps" because I think the considerations I muster (at most) favor a less ambitious relative of that argument. The less ambitious claim I hope to motivate is that there is little reason (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Peter J. Graham (2004). Metaphysical Libertarianism and the Epistemology of Testimony. American Philosophical Quarterly 41 (1):37-50.score: 24.0
    Reductionism about testimony holds that testimonial warrant or entitlement is just a species of inductive warrant. Anti-Reductionism holds that it is different from inductive but analogous to perceptual or memorial warrant. Perception receives much of its positive epistemic status from being reliably truthconducive in normal conditions. One reason to reject the epistemic analogy is that testimony involves agency – it goes through the will of the speaker – but perception does not. A speaker might always choose to lie or otherwise (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Gary Watson (1999). Soft Libertarianism and Hard Compatibilism. Journal of Ethics 3 (4):351-365.score: 24.0
    In this paper I discuss two kinds of attempts to qualify incompatibilist and compatibilist conceptions of freedom to avoid what have been thought to be incredible commitments of these rival accounts. One attempt -- which I call soft libertarianism -- is represented by Robert Kane''s work. It hopes to defend an incompatibilist conception of freedom without the apparently difficult metaphysical costs traditionally incurred by these views. On the other hand, in response to what I call the robot objection (that (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Daniel Moseley (2011). What is Libertarianism? Basic Income Studies 6 (2):4.score: 24.0
    This essay is the introduction to a special debate issue of the journal "Basic Income Studies" on the topic of whether libertarians should endorse a universal basic income. The essay attempts to clarify some common uses of the term 'libertarianism" as it is used by moral and political philosophers. It identifies some important common features of libertarian normative theories.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Derk Pereboom (2012). The Disappearing Agent Objection to Event-Causal Libertarianism. Philosophical Studies (1):1-11.score: 24.0
    The question I raise is whether Mark Balaguer’s event-causal libertarianism can withstand the disappearing agent objection. The concern is that with the causal role of the events antecedent to a decision already given, nothing settles whether the decision occurs, and so the agent does not settle whether the decision occurs. Thus it would seem that in this view the agent will not have the control in making decisions required for moral responsibility. I examine whether Balaguer’s position has the resources (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Steve Daskal (2010). Libertarianism Left and Right, the Lockean Proviso, and the Reformed Welfare State. Social Theory and Practice 36 (1):21-43.score: 24.0
    This paper explores the implications of libertarianism for welfare policy. There are two central arguments. First, the paper argues that if one adopts a libertarian framework, it makes most sense to be a Lockean right-libertarian. Second, the paper argues that this form of libertarianism leads to the endorsement of a fairly extensive set of redistributive welfare programs. Specifically, the paper argues that Lockean right-libertarians are committed to endorsing welfare programs under which the receipt of benefits is conditional on (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Alicia Finch (2013). Against Libertarianism. Philosophical Studies 166 (3):475-493.score: 24.0
    The so-called Mind argument aims at the conclusion that agents act freely only if determinism is true. The soundness of this argument entails the falsity of libertarianism, the two-part thesis that agents act freely, and free action and determinism are incompatible. In this paper, I offer a new formulation of the Mind argument. I argue that it is true by definition that if an agent acts freely, either (i) nothing nomologically grounds an agent’s acting freely, or (ii) the consequence (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Nicolas Maloberti (2009). Libertarianism and the Possibility of the Legitimate State. Libertarian Papers 1 (5):1-12.score: 24.0
    The classical formulation of libertarianism seems to be incompatible with the requirements of political legitimacy. Some libertarians have endorsed this result, denying that the state is legitimate. This paper argues, however, that the particular nature of that incompatibility represents a problem for the classical formulation of libertarianism. It is argued that acknowledging the existence of a particular minimal form of positive rights might overcome the problem in question. It is further argued that acknowledgment of such positive rights would (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Christopher Evan Franklin (2014). Event-Causal Libertarianism, Functional Reduction, and the Disappearing Agent Argument. Philosophical Studies 170 (3):413-432.score: 24.0
    Event-causal libertarians maintain that an agent’s freely bringing about a choice is reducible to states and events involving him bringing about the choice. Agent-causal libertarians demur, arguing that free will requires that the agent be irreducibly causally involved. Derk Pereboom and Meghan Griffith have defended agent-causal libertarianism on this score, arguing that since on event-causal libertarianism an agent’s contribution to his choice is exhausted by the causal role of states and events involving him, and since these states and (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Seth Shabo (2014). Assimilations and Rollbacks: Two Arguments Against Libertarianism Defended. Philosophia 42 (1):151-172.score: 24.0
    The Assimilation Argument purports to show that libertarians cannot plausibly distinguish supposed exercises of free will from random outcomes that nobody would count as exercises of free will. If this argument is sound, libertarians should either abandon their position or else concede that free will is a mystery. Drawing on a parallel with the Manipulation Argument against compatibilism, Christopher Franklin has recently contended that the Assimilation Argument is unsound. Here I defend the Assimilation Argument and the Rollback Argument, a second (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Ned Dobos (2011). Non-Libertarianism and Shareholder Theory: A Reply to Schaefer. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 98 (2):273 - 279.score: 24.0
    Libertarianism and the shareholder model of corporate responsibility have long been thought of as natural bedfellows. In a recent contribution to the Journal of Business Ethics, Brian Schaefer goes so far as to suggest that a proponent of shareholder theory cannot coherendy and consistently embrace any moral position other than philosophical libertarianism. The view that managers have a fiduciary obligation to advance the interests of shareholders exclusively is depicted as fundamentally incompatible with the acknowledgement of natural positive duties (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Brian Zamulinski (2005). Noziek's Anachronistic Libertarianism. Dialogue 44 (2):211-223.score: 24.0
    The conclusions on libertarianism Robert Nozick reaches are appropriate for a bygone era. In a modern market economy, libertarianism requires that employable people have the option of taking up a publicly provided income instead of employment. This is the only way to compensate the involuntarily unemployed that a market economy requires and to ensure that all employment is voluntary. Taxation on voluntary exchanges is unobjectionable because it alters prices, not property, and no one has a right to a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Gene Callahan (2013). Liberty Versus Libertarianism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (1):48-67.score: 24.0
    This paper aims to persuade its reader that libertarianism, at least in several of its varieties, is a species of the genus Michael Oakeshott referred to as ‘rationalism in politics’. I hope to demonstrate, employing the work of Oakeshott, as well as Aristotle and Onora O’Neill, how many libertarian theorists, who generally have a sincere and admirable commitment to personal liberty, have been led astray by the rationalist promise that we might be able to approach deductive certainty concerning the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Gerald K. Harrison (2006). The Case for Hyper-Libertarianism. Kriterion 20 (1):1-6.score: 24.0
    The hyper libertarian is compatibilist about control, but incompatibilist about free will. This paper argues that such a position has more to recommend it than either compatibilism or traditional libertarianism. It combines what is strongest about both positions, without encountering their principle weaknesses. Furthermore it has the resources to help render intelligible the reality of moral luck.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Garvan Walshe (forthcoming). Green Libertarianism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice:1-16.score: 24.0
    People evolved as part of an ecosystem, making use of the Earth’s bounty without reflection. Only when our ancestors developed the capacity for moral agency could we begin to reflect on whether we had taken in excess of our due. This outlines a ‘green libertarianism’ in which our property rights are grounded in fundamental ecological facts. It further argues that it is immune from two objections levelled at right- and left- libertarian theories of acquisition: that Robert Nozick, without justification, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Robert S. Taylor (2005). Self-Ownership and the Limits of Libertarianism. Social Theory and Practice 31 (4):465-482.score: 21.0
    In the longstanding debate between liberals and libertarians over the morality of redistributive labor taxation, liberals such as John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin have consistently taken the position that such taxation is perfectly compatible with individual liberty, whereas libertarians such as Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard have adopted the (very) contrary position that such taxation is tantamount to slavery. In this paper, I argue that the debate over redistributive labor taxation can be usefully reconstituted as a debate over the incidents (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. David Widerker (1995). Libertarianism and Frankfurt's Attack on the Principle of Alternative Possibilities. Philosophical Review 104 (2):247-61.score: 21.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Alicia Finch & Ted A. Warfield (1998). The Mind Argument and Libertarianism. Mind 107 (427):515-28.score: 21.0
    Many critics of libertarian freedom have charged that freedom is incompatible with indeterminism. We show that the strongest argument that has been provided for this claim is invalid. The invalidity of the argument in question, however, implies the invalidity of the standard Consequence argument for the incompatibility of freedom and determinism. We show how to repair the Consequence argument and argue that no similar improvement will revive the worry about the compatibility of indeterminism and freedom.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Robert F. Allen (2005). Free Will and Indeterminism: Robert Kane's Libertarianism. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:341-355.score: 21.0
    Drawing on Aristotle’s notion of “ultimate responsibility,” Robert Kane argues that to be exercising a free will an agent must have taken some character forming decisions for which there were no sufficient conditions or decisive reasons.1 That is, an agent whose will is free not only had the ability to develop other dispositions, but could have exercised that ability without being irrational. To say it again, a person has a free will just in case her character is the product of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Mark Balaguer (1999). Libertarianism as a Scientifically Respectable View. Philosophical Studies 93 (2):189-211.score: 21.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Alfred R. Mele (2005). Libertarianism, Luck, and Control. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (3):381-407.score: 21.0
    This article critically examines recent work on free will and moral responsibility by Randolph Clarke, Robert Kane, and Timothy O’Connor in an attempt to clarify issues about control and luck that are central to the debate between libertarians (agent causationists and others) and their critics. It is argued that luck poses an as yet unresolved problem for libertarians.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. John D. Bishop (2003). Prospects for a Naturalist Libertarianism: O'Connor's Persons and Causes. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1):228-243.score: 21.0
  26. Benjamin Capps (2011). Libertarianism, Legitimation, and the Problems of Regulating Cognition-Enhancing Drugs. Neuroethics 4 (2):119-128.score: 21.0
    Some libertarians tend to advocate the wide availability of cognition-enhancing drugs beyond their current prescription-only status. They suggest that certain kinds of drugs can be a component of a prudential conception of the ‘good life’—they enhance our opportunities and preferences; and therefore, if a person freely chooses to use them, then there is no justification for the kind of prejudicial, authoritative restrictions that are currently deployed in public policy. In particular, this libertarian idea signifies that if enhancements are a prudential (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Laurence BonJour (1976). Deeterminism, Libertarianism, and Agent Causation. Southern Journal of Philosophy 14 (2):145-56.score: 21.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Randolph Clarke (2000). Libertarianism, Action Theory, and the Loci of Responsibility. Philosophical Studies 98 (2):153-174.score: 21.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Kevin Timpe (2006). A Critique of Frankfurt-Libertarianism. Philosophia 34 (2):189-202.score: 21.0
    Most libertarians think that some version of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) is true. A number of libertarians, which I call ‘Frankfurt-libertarians,’ think that they need not embrace any version of PAP. In this paper, I examine the writings of one such Frankfurt-libertarian, Eleonore Stump, for her evaluation of the impact of Frankfurt-style counterexamples (FSCs) to PAP. I show how, contrary to her own claims, Stump does need a PAP-like principle for her account of free action. I briefly argue (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Ken Levy (2001). The Main Problem with USC Libertarianism. Philosophical Studies 105 (2):107-127.score: 21.0
    Libertarians like Robert Kane believe that indeterminism is necessaryfor free will. They think this in part because they hold both (1) thatmy being the ultimate cause of at least part of myself is necessary forfree will and (2) that indeterminism is necessary for this ``ultimateself-causation''. But seductive and intuitive as this ``USCLibertarianism'' may sound, it is untenable. In the end, nometaphysically coherent (not to mention empirically valid) conception ofultimate self-causation is available. So the basic intuition motivatingthe USC Libertarian is ultimately (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Peter Vallentyne (2000). Left-Libertarianism: A Primer. In Peter Vallentyne & Hillel Steiner (eds.), Left Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. Palgrave Publishers Ltd..score: 21.0
    Left-libertarian theories of justice hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, leftlibertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike the more familiar right-libertarianism (which also endorses full self-ownership), it holds that natural resources—resources which are not the results of anyone's choices and which are necessary for any form of activity—may be privately appropriated (...)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Alfred R. Mele (1996). Soft Libertarianism and Frankfurt-Style Scenarios. Philosophical Topics 24 (2):123-41.score: 21.0
  33. Ishtiyaque Haji (2005). Libertarianism, Luck, and Action Explanation. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:321-340.score: 21.0
    My primary objective is to motivate the concern that leading libertarian views of free action seem unable to account for an agent’s behavior in a way that reveals an explanatorily apt connection between the agent’s prior reasons and the intentional behavior to be explained. I argue that it is this lack of a suitable reasons explanation of purportedly free decisions that underpins the objection that agents who act with the pertinent sort of libertarian freedom cannot be morally responsible for what (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Ishtiyaque Haji (2000). Libertarianism and the Luck Objection. Journal of Ethics 4 (4):329-337.score: 21.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. M. Bernstein (1995). Kanean Libertarianism. Southwest Philosophy Review 11 (1):151-57.score: 21.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Fabian Wendt (forthcoming). Justice and Political Authority in Left-Libertarianism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics:1470594-14539698.score: 21.0
    From a left-libertarian perspective, it seems almost impossible for states to acquire political authority. For that reason, left-libertarians like Peter Vallentyne understandably hope that states without political authority could nonetheless implement left-libertarian justice. Vallentyne has argued that one can indeed assess a state’s justness without assessing its political authority. Against Vallentyne, I try to show that states without political authority have to be judged unjust even if they successfully promote justice. The reason is that institutions can be unjust independently from (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Alfred R. Mele (2003). Soft Libertarianism and Flickers of Freedom. In David Widerker & Michael McKenna (eds.), Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities. Ashgate. 251--264.score: 21.0
  38. Gerald Harrison (2005). Luck and Hyper-Libertarianism. Sorites 16:93-102.score: 21.0
  39. Laura W. Ekstrom (2002). Libertarianism and Frankfurt-Style Cases. In Robert H. Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford University Press.score: 21.0
  40. Carl Ginet (2003). Libertarianism. In Michael J. Loux & Dean W. Zimmerman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 587-612.score: 21.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. John Lemos (2014). Libertarianism and Free Determined Decisions. Metaphilosophy 45 (4-5):675-688.score: 21.0
    Free determined decisions are free decisions that are causally determined by the character of the agent. Robert Kane is a libertarian about free will who believes some of our free decisions are determined in this way. According to Kane, for a determined decision to be free it must proceed from the agent's character and the agent must have shaped that character through previous undetermined free decisions. In recent writings, Mark Balaguer has argued that human beings may well possess libertarian freedom, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Loren E. Lomasky (2005). Libertarianism at Twin Harvard. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):178-199.score: 18.0
    In this essay Loren Lomasky wryly proposes that the views of Rawls and Nozick might not be as radically divergent as is conventionally supposed. To demonstrate this proposition, Lomasky invents “Twin Harvard” counterparts of Rawls and Nozick. The twist is that Twin Rawls turns out to be a leading libertarian theorist while Twin Nozick endorses a regime of sweeping redistribution. In each case the position follows from familiar elements in the theories of their respective, real-world counterparts. Lomasky concludes that Twin (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner & And Michael Otsuka (2005). Why Left-Libertarianism is Not Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2):201–215.score: 18.0
    Over the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in left-libertarianism, which holds (roughly) that agents fully own themselves and that natural resources (land, minerals, air, etc.) belong to everyone in some egalitarian sense. Left-libertarianism agrees with the more familiar right-libertarianism about self-ownership, but radically disagrees with it about the power to acquire ownership of natural resources. Merely being the first person to claim, discover, or mix labor with an unappropriated natural resource does not—left-libertarianism insists—generate (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Richard J. Arneson (2010). Self-Ownership and World Ownership: Against Left-Libertarianism. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (1):168-194.score: 18.0
    What regime of property ownership satisfies norms of justice? The doctrine known as “left-libertarianism” offers a seemingly plausible answer.1 Its basic thrust is that libertarianism properly understood leaves room for an egalitarianism that enhances its appeal. In this essay I argue that the seeming plausibility of the doctrine evaporates under scrutiny. This set of views is unacceptable from any political standpoint, left, right, or center. The left-libertarian category encompasses a family of positions. I focus on one of these, (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Michael Otsuka, Why Left-Libertarianism Is.score: 18.0
    For insightful comments, we thank G. A. Cohen, Barbara Fried, Leif Wenar, Andrew Williams, Jonathan Wolff, and the Editors of Philosophy & Public Affairs. 1. Barbara Fried, “Left-Libertarianism: A Review Essay,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 32 (2004): 66–92. This is a review of The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of His- torical Writings and Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate, both edited by Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner (New York: Palgrave Publishers Ltd., 2000).
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Peter Vallentyne (2007). Libertarianism and the State. Social Philosophy and Policy 24 (1):187-205.score: 18.0
    Although Robert Nozick has argued that libertarianism is compatible with the justice of a minimal state—even if does not arise from mutual consent—few have been persuaded. I will outline a different way of establishing that a non-consensual libertarian state can be just. I will show that a state can—with a few important qualifications—justly enforce the rights of citizens, extract payments to cover the costs of such enforcement, redistribute resources to the poor, and invest in infrastructure to overcome market failures. (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner & Michael Otsuka (2009). Left-Libertarianism and Liberty Forthcoming in Debates in Political Philosophy. In Thomas Christiano & John Christman (eds.), Debates in Political Philosophy. Blackwell Publishers.score: 18.0
    I shall formulate and motivate a left-libertarian theory of justice. Like the more familiar rightlibertarianism, it holds that agents initially fully own themselves. Unlike right-libertarianism, it holds that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. Left-libertarianism is, I claim, a plausible version of liberal egalitarianism because it is suitably sensitive to considerations of liberty, security, and equality.
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Jan Narveson (1998). Libertarianism Vs. Marxism: Reflections on G. A. Cohen's Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 2 (1):1-26.score: 18.0
    Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality is G.A. Cohens attempt to rescue something of the socialist outlook on society from the challenge of libertarianism, which Cohen identifies with the work of Robert Nozick in his famous book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Sympathizing with the leading idea that a person must belong to himself, and thus be unavailable for forced redistribution of his efforts, Cohen is at pains to reconcile the two. This cannot be done – they are flatly contrary. Moreover, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Michael Otsuka (2005). Libertarianism Without Inequality. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    Libertarianism without Inequality is a book which everyone interested in political theory should read.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Matt Zwolinski, Libertarianism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 18.0
    This paper is an encyclopedia entry on the political philosophy of libertarianism, written for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It discusses the major contemporary strands of libertarianism and their historical roots, and presents some of the main criticisms of these strands. Its focus is on libertarianism as a doctrine about distributive justice and political authority, and specifically on the consequentialist and natural rights formulations of these views.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 533