A link or something would help people read
-
-
-
Yeah, having tried to seek this out in the past, my guess is the lack of a link is because lots has been written but nothing has been agreed upon. The closes to a consensus is a sort of modernized Lockean theory of property that more or less brushes aside the problem of scarcity.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"This means that you have to actually make an independent case for why your own theory of entitlement is correct, not just assume it in the background and thereby call all forceful actions contrary to it theft."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Paine was sincerely the best proto-socialist thinker in the English language, my man was out there arguing for universal health care in 1791
End of conversation
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
But the point is that you have to actually argue independently for a libertarian theory of entitlement before you can call taxation “theft”. Just calling it “theft” and expecting everyone to agree *presupposes* a libertarian theory of entitlement
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Matt Bruenig has read more libertarian theory than most libertarians. He wrote a series of entries on important libertarian thinkers back in the day. I think Nozick made it out somewhat ok compared to others, but not quite unscathed: https://mattbruenig.com/2013/08/17/the-nozickian-case-for-rawls-difference-principle/ …
-
I don’t see how the move to the difference principle works here
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.