Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Blogging Freedom
I've been discussing libertarianism and freedom in the comments of a couple of other blogs recently. (1) At Melbourne Philosopher I question whether the notion of 'maximizing' freedom is a coherent one. (2) In response to my recent criticisms of libertarianism, Not PC complained about "straw men" and asserted that my criticisms would not apply to most libertarians. I replied in comments with four specific objections which hold against all libertarians. (I await his response.)
2 comments:
Visitors: check my comments policy first.
Non-Blogger users: If the comment form isn't working for you, email me your comment and I can post it on your behalf. (If your comment is too long, first try breaking it into two parts.)
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi Richard. I intend to respond, but without wanting to hold up yoru assignment preparation, I note in the meantime you've ignored the substantive criticism I pointed you to of Nozick's 'Self-ownership' argument, upon which near-all of your own subsequent criticism rests.
ReplyDeleteThe article is here: http://www.organonarchitecture.co.nz/Not_PC/Sean%20Kimpton.htm
Think that one through and check out those other links on my site I've suggested to you in comments and blogs, and I think you'll find the answers are already there.
Cheers, PC
Hi PC. Again, it simply isn't true that "near-all" of my criticisms rest upon the self-ownership view. Most of my criticisms are aimed more generally at absolute property rights, or 'merely formal' freedom, and thus apply to all libertarians. Nothing you have said or linked to goes any way at all to answering those criticisms. But I look forward to your response :)
ReplyDelete