Responsiveness is defined for empirical knowledge by a reformulation of Robert Nozick ’ s tracking conditions — for example: if p were false, then S wouldn ’ t believe p — using conditional probability instead of counterfactuals.

Similarly, Robert Nozick argues for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable " side-constraints " which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do.

On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft.

Philosopher Robert Nozick argues that Rand's foundational argument in ethics is unsound because she does not explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and having no values.

Nozick also argues that Rand's solution to David Hume's famous is-ought problem is unsatisfactory.

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues that, while the original position may be the just starting point, any inequalities derived from that distribution by means of free exchange are equally just, and that any re-distributive tax is an infringement on people's liberty.

The invisible hand is traditionally understood as a concept in economics, but Robert Nozick argues in Anarchy, State and Utopia that substantively the same concept exists in a number of other areas of academic discourse under different names, notably Darwinian natural selection.

In opposition to A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, and in debate with Michael Walzer, Nozick argues in favor of a minimal state, " limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on.

" When a state takes on more responsibilities than these, Nozick argues, rights will be violated.

Nozick argues that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own non-aggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone's interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage.

However Nozick argues that D2 is just.

Thus Nozick argues that what the Wilt Chamberlain example shows is that no patterned principle of just distribution will be compatible with liberty.

Furthermore, Rawls's idea regarding morally arbitrary natural endowments comes under fire ; Nozick argues that natural advantages that the well-off enjoy do not violate anyone's rights and therefore have a right to them, on top of which is the fact that Rawls's own proposal that inequalities be geared toward assisting the worse-off is in itself morally arbitrary.

Nozick appealed to the Kantian idea that people should be treated as ends ( what he termed ' separateness of persons '), not merely as a means to some other end.

That some people's " natural assets " were unearned is irrelevant to the equation, according to Nozick, and he argued that people are nevertheless entitled to enjoy these assets and other things freely given by others.

Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popular basketball player in this society, and Nozick further assumes 1 million people are willing to freely give Wilt 25 cents each to watch him play basketball over the course of a season ( we assume no other transactions occur ).

The theory is Nozick's attempt to describe " justice in holdings " ( Nozick 1974: 150 )-or what can be said about and done with the property people own when viewed from a principle of justice.

Unfortunately, not everyone follows these rules: " some people steal from others, or defraud them, or enslave them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly exclude others from competing in exchanges " ( Nozick 1974: 152 ).

" Holdings to which .. people are entitled may not be seized, even to provide equality of opportunity for others " ( Nozick 1974: 235 ).

No one has a right to something whose realization requires certain uses of things and activities that other people have rights and entitlements over " ( Nozick 1974: 238 ).

Nozick was born in Brooklyn, the son of a Jewish entrepreneur from the Russian shtetl who had been born with the name of Cohen.

An argument similar to D ' Souza's was raised by Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, who wrote that the only way to achieve equality of opportunity was " directly worsening the situations of those more favored with opportunity, or by improving the situation of those less well-favored.

A well-known critique of free-market anarchism is by Robert Nozick, who argued that a competitive legal system would evolve toward a monopoly government – even without violating individuals rights in the process.

Nozick analogizes taxation with forced labor, asking the reader to imagine a man who works longer to gain income to buy a movie ticket and a man who spends his extra time on leisure ( for instance, watching the sunset ).

Previous holders of the chair were Robert Nozick, a philosopher, and Edward O. Wilson, the biologist, who is currently Pellegrino University Research Professor ( an emeritus professor ).

** Natural rights theories, such that of John Locke or Robert Nozick, which hold that human beings have absolute, natural rights.

In response, philosophers Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl have argued that Nozick misstated Rand's case.

Nozick asked us to imagine that " superduper neuropsychologists " have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain to induce pleasurable experiences.

Nozick says no, then asks whether we have reasons not to plug into the machine and concludes that since it does not seem to be rational to plug in, ethical hedonism must be false.

* Robert Nozick suggests knowledge must consist of justified true belief that is " truth-tracking "— belief held in such a way that if it turned out to be false it would not have been held, and vice versa ;

On the other hand, some epistemologists, including Robert Nozick, have denied closure principles on the basis of reliabilist accounts of knowledge.

If Y didn't exist, then " fair lady " would have married X ; but Y exists, so she marries Y. Nozick asks: Does suitor X have a legitimate complaint against Y on the basis of unfairness since Y didn't earn his good looks or intelligence?

Nozick asks why the well-off would be obliged, due to their inequality and for the sake of social cooperation, to assist the worse-off and not have the worse-off accept the inequality and benefit the well-off.

Nozick holds a " Lockean " conception of liberty, where liberty is simply " the right to do, that which you have a right to do ".

Leff stated that Nozick built his entire book on the bald assertion that " individuals have rights which may not be violated by other individuals ", for which no justification is offered.

In his later work, The Examined Life, Nozick reflects that entitlement theory's defense of people's holdings may have some problems, in that it could eventually lead to the vast majority of resources being pooled in the hands of the extremely skilled, or, through gifts and inheritance, in the hands of the extremely skilled's friends and children.

Right-libertarians like Robert Nozick, holding that self-ownership and property acquisition need not meet egalitarian standards and that they must merely avoid worsening the situation of others, have rejected left-libertarianism of the Steiner-Vallentyne school.

For example, Robert Nozick holds that a certain set of minimal rules, which he calls " side-constraints ", are necessary to ensure appropriate actions.

Due to certain counterexamples that could otherwise be raised against these counterfactual conditions, Nozick specified that:

" Nozick cites Patterns of Discovery from pp. 119 – 120, quoting " Though the X ( color, heat, and so on ) of an object can be explained in terms of its being composed of parts of certain X-quality ( colors in certain array, average heat of parts, and so on ), the whole realm of X cannot be explained or understood in this manner.

Nozick presses " the major objection " to theories that bestow and enforce positive rights to various things such as equality of opportunity, life, and so on.