-
@thetabularasa, I hope you don't see my post as "rabid criticism," and I imagine I speak for most ancaps when I say that I recognize that objectivists and minarchists have a lot in common with ancaps, and that Ayn Rand has been important in introducing people to the idea that capitalism and voluntary association is not villianous. But
-
I think it's important to note what the passage you quoted is trying to address: the deductive argument that objectivism is self-contradictory by advocating for a government. Just before that quote, the author talks about "What theory or interpretation of "rights" is to be used? Rand's? Henry George's? Lenin's?" then
-
I don't know if it's just that I'm not experienced enough in philsophical discussions, or haven't studied it enough, but I have trouble understanding what the beef is that people have with the a priori aspect of Austrian methodology. It's totally possible I've just not been exposed to sophisticated enough arguments against it
-
@davidb, I think you good point about the characteristics of the property rules in the book's world, and how they are there, just with different ideas of time and location than we are used to. I have to admit, I was pretty disappointed with the book after I finished reading it, because I was going into it expecting to me immersed in this very alien
-
I recently finished reading The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin, which is a scifi book about a place where an anarcho-communist revolution happened, and the people that took part in it were given the moon as a place to set up their society. The people on the moon spoke a manufactured language called Pravic, which the author says has no possessives, as