Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anarchism | Buchanan | Brocker I 564 Anarchism/BuchananVsAnarchism/Contract Theory/Buchanan: For the inhabitants of Buchanan's realistic initial state, natural anarchy is incompatible with their fundamental interest in freedom. The emerging conflicts also destroy any approach to long-term cooperation and do not give rise to stable social relationships (barter relationships). Individual areas of freedom must be defined for the exchange in order to avoid conflicts. See Buchanan 1975 (1). See also Contract Theory/Buchanan. 1. James M. Buchanan, The Limits of Liberty. Between Anarchy and Leviathan, Chicago/London 1975. Dt.: James M. Buchanan, Die Grenzen der Freiheit. Zwischen Anarchie und Leviathan, Tübingen 1984. Wolfgang Kersting, „James M. Buchanan, Die Grenzen der Freiheit“ in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
EconBuchan I James M. Buchanan Politics as Public Choice Carmel, IN 2000 Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
| Market Anarchism | Liberalism | Gaus I 118 Market Anarchism/tratidional liberalism/Gauss/Mack: The liberty tradition’s doctrinal commitments easily endorse Market Anarchism (Friedman, 1973)(1). Liberty requires private property and a market order (>Order/liberalism, >Property7LIberalism). Gaus I 119 Individualism: desirable order emerges out of individual choices (>Individuals/Liberalism), the market uses the dispersed information of individuals, Coercion: the tradition is deeply sceptical of all coercion to the extent that most coercion is illegitimate, and, crucially, because the liberty tradition rejects an important distinction between public and private morality, the grounds for justified coercion must lie in the rights of private individuals. >Institutions/Liberalism. LockeVsAnarchy: Solution: each would agree to a political society, ‘all private judgement of every particular Member being excluded, the Community comes to be Umpire, by settled standing Rules, indifferent and the same to all Parties’ and where only some have the authority to interpret and enforce these rules (1960(2): 342). Marchet AnarchismVsLocke: Market Anarchists, however, do not concede the need for political authority to solve such disagreement. Order: Against Locke, the market anarchist argues that a market regime of multiple, competing, protective agencies will not produce disorder and strife – so long as there is a strong demand for the orderly, peaceful, and just resolution of disputes. If we suppose that people desire the orderly, peaceful, and just resolution of disputes strongly enough that the powers of a >minimal state would be confined to the provision of such resolutions, this very demand for orderly, peaceful, and just resolution of disputes would be strong enough to call forth their market provision. >Society/Market Anarchism. Market Anarchism/traditional liberalism/Gaus/Mack: LiberalismVsAnarchism: A member of the liberty tradition defending some form of government might reply to this anarchist case in two ways. 1) VsAnarchism: (...) the enterprise of producing and delivering the protection of rightful claims is especially subject to natural monopolies or cartelization. Gaus I 120 Monopoly problem: (...) judging and protection are characterized by increasing returns. If it is the case that over the full range of possible outputs, the (n + 1)th unit costs less to produce than did the nth unit, then the larger a provider already is, the less its marginal and average costs. This may well be the case with protection services. If increasing returns hold, a monopolistic provider is apt to arise in a free market. In two ways this takes the sting out of the anarchist’s condemnation of the government’s monopoly (Nozick, 1974(3): 52). >Society/Market Anarchism. Cartelization problem: A protective agency will be able to compete effectively in the provision of desired protective services only if it can offer to its clients the enforcement of the rights articulations, rules, procedures, and appeal mechanisms that emerge from agreements among the competing protective agencies. 2) VsAnarchism: a protective agency or confederation of such agencies that aspires to the status of minimal state can more readily permissibly suppress the putatively rights-protecting activities of its competitors than may at first seem to be the case (Nozick, 1974)(3). For such an agency or confederation may permissibly suppress activities that pose even a moderate risk of violating rights (at least if it will not be feasible for the boundary crossers to compensate the victims of their violations). >Minimal state/Gauss. 1. Friedman, David (1973) The Machinery of Freedom. New York: Harper and Row. 2. Locke, John (1960) Second Treatise of Government. In Peter Laslett, ed., Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3. Nozick, Robert (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic. 4. Cowen, Tyler (1992) 'Law as a public good: the economics of anarchy'. Economics and Philosophy, 8:249—67. Mack, Eric and Gaus, Gerald F. 2004. „Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism: The Liberty Tradition.“ In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications. |
Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rationalism | Lakatos Vs Rationalism | Feyerabend I 245 Lakatos: Standards alone have no heuristic power. Reason, as it is defined by Lakatos, has no direct influence on the activity of the scientist. If one takes this reason alone and nothing else, "one can do whatever one wants. (>Rationalism). Feyerabend I 263 LakatosVsKuhn, LakatosVsAnarchism: emphasized the very different "rationality" of the everyday mind, but without making its readers aware of the shift in meaning. |
Laka I I. Lakatos The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Volume 1: Philosophical Papers (Philosophical Papers (Cambridge)) Cambridge 1980 Feyerabend I Paul Feyerabend Against Method. Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, London/New York 1971 German Edition: Wider den Methodenzwang Frankfurt 1997 Feyerabend II P. Feyerabend Science in a Free Society, London/New York 1982 German Edition: Erkenntnis für freie Menschen Frankfurt 1979 |
| |||