Monday, April 11, 2016

More On Whether Nozick Is A Social Contactarian


....You clearly do not understand how weasel words function. They permit the writer so say something while enabling him do deny saying it if called on it. And you clearly do not understand Nozick's purpose in discussing social contract in Rawls. It is to make the point that the legitimacy of the State does not depend on the consent if the citizens, but only on the State's protection of the entitlements of the citizens. Nozick is not interested in how a State might have come into existence; he is interested only in legitimacy. He is attacking Rawls's account of how the State could come into existence as the rational agreement of people behind the Veil of ignorance. Unless you understand that context, you cannot possibly understand what Nozick is up to. You cannot understand any philosopher at all if you do not understand how and why contexts motivate him....


....You're simply repeating your assertions over and over again while failing, totally failing, to confront the analytical point about ascending associations. 

I'm not in the least impressed, let alone persuaded.

You may not understand this: but to associate as a conscious act associates must *AGREE* to associate. (I trust the caps and the asterisks help drive home the point.)

Here's more help for you: 


Evolution Of State Without Rights Violations

State of Nature------------>Inefficent------->Mutual Protective Associations-----

----->Natural Monopoly Of Force--------->Dominant Protective Association---------

----->Incorporation of Independents--->MinimalState

And still more: 

Association: ....(often in names) a group of people organized for a joint purpose.
"the National Association of Broadcasters" synonyms: alliance, consortium, union, league, guild, syndicate, federation, cooperative, partnership, organization...

I take it you get the point.

Nozick attacks Rawls because he, Nozick, fundamentally rejects redistribution. Among a  number of grounds for objecting to Rawls's thought experiment are: it's too rarified and abstract; consent must be seen in how people more actually behave; and justice doesn't inhere in the violation of people innate's liberty to keep the fruits of their own labour and enterprise (within a legal framework) for the benefit of others. 

None of this vitiates the agreement at the heart of Nozick's account of the state, just sketched. And so the context you proclaim as making clear that Nozick isn't a modern social contract thinker does no such thing. Context rather is a means of you rationalizing your ever-repeated position.

You either implicitly or explicitly, depending on which communication it is, I've lost track of them all, keep saying that a natural law belief in preexisting rights negates the social contract. I've shown you that that's horseshit, particularly with the example of Locke. And you keep separating legitimacy--the fulfillment and protection, indeed vindication, of those rights--from citizens agreeing to live the best, most effective, most efficient   lives, as Nozick sees it, in having their greatest liberty in proportion to the limits on the state they consent minimally to submit to. 

Finally, a different point: your notion that philosophers can't be understood--even as I understand Nozick's context vis a vis Rawls--without understanding their context is bizarre. It sounds post modern, like saying a literary text can't be understood outside of its context. I'm surprised you'd say that.

No comments:

Post a Comment