Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:49:32.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Libertarianism Opposes Coercive Capitalism: A Reply to Silver

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Brian Zamulinski
Brian Zamulinski
Affiliation:
Kainan University, Taiwan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Intervention/Discussion
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , Winter 2008 , pp. 137 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Zamulinski, Brian, “Nozick's Anachronistic Libertarianism,” Dialogue, 44 (2005): 211–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Silver, Zachary, “Worse Off How? Why the World Does Not Owe You a Living,” Dialogue, 46 (2007): 369–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), p. 180.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., p. 33.

5 Ibid., p. 182.

6 At this point, it seems likely that Silver would protest that this is not what Nozick says. Indeed, it is not; but Nozick is a philosopher, not a prophet, and one can accept his principles without uncritically accepting his inferences. I believe that Nozick is wrong about what our labour gets us in terms of property.