#150 in Reference books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Sentiment score: 5
Reddit mentions: 7
We found 7 Reddit mentions of Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
- Realistic feather toy activates your cat's hunting instinct
- Pull-a-part rod for easy storage
- Cats love its flight-like motion and prey-like appearance
- Public Alert: Hide toys when not in use and supervise your pet while playing at all times
- Hand crafted in the USA
Features:
Specs:
Height | 9.5 Inches |
Length | 6 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 1.15081300764 Pounds |
Width | 1.25 Inches |
I am a rising 3L. It would have been helpful if you gave a bit more information about why in the world you're considering becoming a lawyer. Since you didn't, I'm just going to give you a huge list of links to materials which have informed my general philosophical understanding of law, justice, and the legal profession and hope you find some of it interesting.
Music:
Dead Prez - Fuck the Law
Crass - Bloody Revolution
GG Allin - Fuck Authority
Wesley Willis - It’s Against the Law
Wilco - Against the Law
Golf Wang - Earl
MellowHype - Fuck the Police
KottonMouth Kings and ICP - Fuck the Police
RATM - Fuck the Police
Dead Kennedys - Police Truck
Choking Victim - Money
Anti-Flag - No Borders, No Nations
Utah Phillips - I Will Not Obey
Woody Guthrie - Jesus Christ
Todos Tus Muertos - Gente Que No
David Wrench - A Radical Song
Books:
Michel Foucault - Discipline and Punish(PDF Link)
[Thomas Geoghegan - The Law in Shambles](http://www.amazon.com/Law-Shambles-Thomas-
Geoghegan/dp/097281969X)
Rawn James Jr. - Root and Branch
Deborah Rhode - In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession
Alan Dershowitz - Letters to a Young Lawyer
Richard Posner - Overcoming Law (specifically read "The Material Basis of Jurisprudence")
Susan Eaton - The Children in Room E4
Sunny Schwartz - Dreams from the Monster Factory: A Tale of Prison, Redemption, and One Woman's Fight to Restore Justice to All
Angela Davis - Are Prisons Obsolete?
Alan Dershowitz - The Best Defense
John Rawls - A Theory of Justice
Robert Nozick - Anarchy, State and Utopia
Ward Churchill - Perversions of Justice: Indigenous Peoples and Anglo-American Laws
J. Shoshanna Ehrlich - Who Decides? The Abortion Rights of Teens
Film:
Judgment at Nuremberg
A Civil Action
To Kill a Mockingbird
>I'm talking like, 'dawn of man' era, not a post-french revolution state.
The "dawn of man" era is what Hobbes and his predecessors refer to as the "state of nature". Even though Hobbes is writing during the 17th century, he is concerned with establishing how the very first political organizations formed out of the state of nature. Essentially Hobbes is saying that primitive man would make a rational choice to give up a few rights to secure others. Even if you are a primitive man you can realize the benefits of increasing your security through political organization.
It has been a while since I have read the Leviathan so don't take my brief account of what he says as correct. You can read the whole thing for free on the internet http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-a.html#CHAPTERI. However, it is somewhat of a tough read because of the outdated language. Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a much more modern book that addresses your concern in the first chapter. It is also one the most influential books of the 20th century. http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465097200
>religion was good.
It very well might of been, but I'm just saying that there are aslo other very good reasons to form political organizations and laws.
This is a very general question, but let me try to point you to what you might be looking for.
If you're looking for people's attitudes on Harper, you can check out this thread from a little while back.
If you're looking for people's ideas on any particular policy, you can either do a search of this subreddit, or ask that question yourself!
If you're looking for people's philosophies, as dmcg12 said, those will be evident if you keep an eye on frequent posters; the more you see them write, the more coherent your picture of their ideas will be. If you're looking at philosophies rather than policies, though, there are philosophers who have produced better arguments than any of us here are likely to be able to articulate in support of their own stances (or at least, they've articulated them in greater detail than I think any of us have done). Some of the best books I've ever read are this (by a Canadian liberal egalitarian/social democrat), this (by a libertarian), and this (by an ex-Marxist Catholic conservative-in-a-way-that's-different-from-most-people-who-call-themselves-conservative). Of those three, I'd start with the Kymlicka, and read at least the chapters on Utilitarianism, Liberal Egalitarianism, and Libertarianism before deciding whether to put down the book. If, however, you take a look at Kymlicka or either of those other books and are intimidated, this does a fabulous job of explaining in accessible language what sort of things people might disagree on, without very strongly coming down on one side or another of such disagreements; it also has outstanding suggestions for further reading. All these books should be in any university library.
That's pretty close. We obviously do have a "right" in the US to a trial by jury, but just like the right to vote, it is not a natural right of human beings. What we do have a right to is to protect ourselves from violence, and to hold those who commit violence against us accountable for their actions.
How we decide to hold those who violate our rights accountable is the process by which we enforce rights, and can take any number of forms. For example, let's say you and I agree beforehand that any future disputes we might have we will take to a wise, Solomon-like king. Or perhaps we decide to settle our disputes based on the outcome of a magic 8-ball. Regardless of how we choose to enforce our rights, so long as we are actually agreeing to this process, our rights will not be violated. Robert Nozick has a good discussion on this in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
Now, one might say that trial by jury is the form that our justice process takes, which we have all agreed to as a society. But clearly, the process of determining the judicial process, which I described above, never took place. In short, the fact that the social contract theory is bankrupt means that nobody is, from a rights-based perspective, obligated to serve as a juror. To demand otherwise is to claim ownership over the time and labor of other individuals against their consent.
Different results than what? You're assuming the lack of government will be better, when we see clearly that extreme lacking of government makes life heinous: http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-1
This is why I talk to people like you with such disdain. The arguments here are well-established, and carefully crafted, you just never took the time to go read them.
Someone WILL have a monopoly of power. Warring tribes have designated soldiers to both protect the tribe from other tribes, and to enforce their own code of conduct: no theft or beating children, etc. Show me an instance where some group won't seize control of power and demand that their imposition of power be recognized as a monopoly.
I'll assume you want something akin to a "return to a state of nature." But our governments came from a state of nature. Everything you see around you has developed from the ground up, sometimes is works, sometimes it doesn't. The instances where it doesn't work will eventually fade and die, and the instances that do work will be copied and propagate. Why do you think you know so much better? I strongly believe you to be both foolish, wildly ignorant, and arrogant. You think simple solutions will fix complex problems. But that's so unrealistic. A big part of me simply doesn't care what the solution to some problem looks like, so long as it improves our living standards and allows people the chance at happiness. What else should we be striving for? Freedom from government at the cost of our life-expectancy? Fuck that, and anyone who thinks like that.
If you really want to do yourself a favor, and have any foothold at all for a conversation like this, go read a book. I suggest you start with this one: http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465097200/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375719331&sr=1-1
If your coming from the left I recommend In Defense of Global Capitalism
If your coming from the right maybe For a New Liberty (free online) or Rollback
Other classics:
Anarchy, State, and Utopia -Academic Philosophy, tough read
Economics in One Lesson - Econ, easy read
Man, Economy and State (also free) - Econ, tough read
As for critics of Libertarianism there are tons of them, from idiots like Naomi Klein and Michael Moore to well respected economists. I would check out someone like Amartya Sen. If you read about criticisms of the free market or capitalism for the love of god read someone who is actually criticizing capitalism and not corporatism.
The best realistic outcome of this project is being able to supply:
a fully automated machine that gathers solar power, with battery storage
a fully automated machine that efficiently grows plants
* a fully automated machine that constructs itself, the two machines above and other machines as raw material is available
The economy won't go away; minerals/materials do not magically become free and neither does land or human labor (even if only wanting human actors for nostalgic reasons). People's wants and needs will increase. There will still be rationing via some method. 'Free market' is currently the most fair way we have.