Metropol

So, I've been doing an 'exam' - a 10-day take home job; more like an assignment really - which has been a little bit different to the sort of thing I normally have to do. Rarely do I get questions in economics that draw upon the size of flies as an example, or require me to watch films like V for Vendetta. Anyway, one of the tasks required me to read a short work by libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick. Since Hyma was asking me about him the other day, I thought I'd share this with all of you.

Read Nozick's "The tale of the slave" (it's really not that long!) and then answer the question posed at the end. I'd be intrigued to hear what your thoughts are. I think it's quite an interesting exercise, and amongst my economics friends I'm getting very similar answers, but I'd like to see how it plays with a more diverse audience.

Oooooh I love Nozick the libertarian.

He may just be my favourite political theorist. Next to Marxists, but only because they have an answer for everything.

Mr Q wrote:Read Nozick's "The tale of the slave" (it's really not that long!) and then answer the question posed at the end. I'd be intrigued to hear what your thoughts are. I think it's quite an interesting exercise, and amongst my economics friends I'm getting very similar answers, but I'd like to see how it plays with a more diverse audience.

None of them. Though I expect the general orthodoxy to be 7.

Yeah I'd agree with the above but that the most popular might be 9, depending on how peoples' brains work. Is it meant to be some sort of comment about elected officials restricting the freedom of those who they represent, the illusion of freedom, that sort of gubbins?

I can't see past the use of "allow" in number 9, as in to give permission. That implies an authority/subservience. So it all hangs on your definition of "slavery" at that point.

Whoops - they don't say "allow" in 9, therefore it would be 8 for me I suppose.

No, 9.

I meant 9.

*sigh*

Its 7.

"You are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions."

Being both "at liberty" and being "given the right to enter the discussions" is surely significant. Why "and the right"? Why in parenthesis?

Is this a matter semantics?

What a swizz. I need answers.

I don't know how to reconcile authority/rule/slavery - and so "quality of life" is becoming a factor, meaning from 3 onwards its all a bit nebulous.

For fuck's sake this is turning into a stream on conciousness from me.

I regard it as consistency of you having influence. In all but 9 it's utterly conditional and you'd be second class, at the whim of others. So that's not free. Then again, see my earlier post about how freedom within a system of representation is a tricky one.

Sput wrote:I regard it as consistency of you having influence. In all but 9 it's utterly conditional and you'd be second class, at the whim of others. So that's not free. Then again, see my earlier post about how freedom within a system of representation is a tricky one.

Yes its a dilly of a pickle.