Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Nozick
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
Dominujący współcześnie w doktrynie libertariańskiej nurt propertarianistyczny utrzymuje, że dla ułożenia harmonijnych stosunków międzyludzkich niezbędne jest ustanowienie i wyraźne zakreślenie własności prywatnej. Pomimo tak silnej preferencji dla praw majątkowych libertarianie propertarianistyczni nie wypracowali spójnego stanowiska wobec prawa własności intelektualnej. W odniesieniu do prawa patentowego i autorskiego wyróżnić można trzy stanowiska: afirmację, woluntaryzm i abolicjonizm. Przedstawicielem pierwszego z wymienionych był Robert Nozick, libertarianin cieszący się bodaj największą sławą i uznaniem środowisk akademickich. Zdaniem filozofa, zasada sprawiedliwego nabywania (jeden z fundamentów teorii legalistycznej) implikuje konieczność uznania m.in. silnej ochrony patentowej. Tytuł do dóbr intelektualnych (zarówno wynalazków, jak i utworów) miałby być naturalnym i przedpolitycznym prawem każdej jednostki, wynikającym z pracy włożonej w stworzenie owych dóbr. Niezależnie od tego, czy twierdzenia Nozicka mogą być uznane za przekonujące, argumenty libertarian za i przeciw legitymizacji własności intelektualnej stanowią ważny głos nie tylko na płaszczyźnie nauk niedogmatycznych (teorie legitymizacji własności intelektualnej), ale i dogmatycznych, gdzie służyć mogą choćby w debacie nad właściwym modelem praw autorskich majątkowych.
EN
Propertarianism, the most prominent of contemporary libertarian factions, holds that in order to establish a harmonious society it is necessary to introduce and delineate the right of private property. Despite the strong preference for property rights, right-wing libertarians do not agree, however, on the legitimization of intellectual property. There are three main libertarian stances on this question: affirmation, voluntarism and abolitionism. The most famous and academically influential exponent of the adherents’ faction is perhaps Robert Nozick. According to the philosopher the rule of just initial acquisition (one of the pillars of the entitlement theory) implicates the necessity of i.a. the strong patent rights. Title to the intellectual goods (both copyright and patent) would be a natural and pre-political right of every individual, resulting from labor put into their creation. Regardless of whether Nozick claims seem convincing, libertarian arguments for and against legitimization of intellectual property make up for an important voice both in the sphere of philosophy of law and jurisprudence debating on the proper model of copyright.
EN
With respect to Robert Nozick’s political philosophy (as it is to be found in Anarchy, State, and Utopia), one of the most prominent theses is the one that asserts that in Nozick’s mind individual rights are founded on the principle of self-ownership - the principle that says that all individuals have, with regard to themselves, rights identical with (or parallel to) rights of property. In this paper we want to focus on slightly different interpretation of Nozick’s thought. First, we summarize Nozick’s account of rights: its main points being the individual being proper subject of rights and the nature of rights as side-constraints. Then we turn our attention to the metnioned interpretation itself. It was proposed by Mark D. Friedman, and it synthesizes Nozick’s insights on this topic scattered throughout his book. It focuses on argument “from moral form to moral content” (from the fact that the form of morality includes side-constraints to the content of libertarian constraint against aggression) suggested by Nozick and on features in virtue of which persons have rights - this features being free will, rationality, moral agency and ability to live one’s life according to some general conception of it.
EN
This scientific article treats of libertarianism. Its fundamental premises are: conception of self-ownership, non-aggression axiom, proprietorship, free market, ‘no victim,no crime’ rule, aversion to the state institutions. The existence of libertarianism itselfis the most prominent subject of dispute between its two currents: minarchism andanarcho-capitalism. The adherents of the doctrine of minimal statism were FriedrichA. von Hayek and Milton Friedman, while Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-HermannHoppe were the followers of the free-market anarchy. The traditional, one-dimensional division into the left and right wing is not sufficient for the libertarianism tofind its place on the political scene. It is multidimensionality that characterises thelibertarian thought.
PL
Przedmiotem artykułu jest koncepcja uzasadnienia karania Roberta Nozicka. Podejście Nozicka wpisuje się w ogólne ramy jego libertariańskiej filozofii politycznej. Libertarianizm może wydawać się zbyt radykalny, jednak w przypadku uzasadnienia karania propozycje wysuwane przez przedstawicieli tego nurty wydają się być niezwykle interesujące. Przede wszystkim, libertariańskie uzasadnienie karania opiera się na czystym retrybutywizmie i przekonaniu, że praktyka karania jest konieczna ze względu na naturę człowieka. Należy karać wyłącznie czyny stanowiące zło samo w sobie i powodujące cierpienie, zaś jedynym usprawiedliwieniem kary jest odpłata – „szachowanie ryzykiem kary” tych, którzy generują strach przed ryzykiem stania się ofiarą przestępstwa.
EN
In the article I wish to present an interpretation of the Nozick’s concept of punishment. It can be easily known, that Nozick’s approach is strongly connected with the libertarian philosophy of the state and its function. Prima facie, libertarianism as the political philosophy can be seen as too radical, particularly from the lawyers point of view. In fact, the libertarian concept of punishment is clearly retributive. However It is worth to remember, that libertarianism in the criminal law can be treated as the smart way of justification of punishment. Libertarianism seeks to find a harmony between the social necessity of the practice of punishment and an individual freedom. The harmony can be achieved by virtue of proper principles of criminal policy. Only the so called malum per se should be punished and the only way of justification of the punishment in such cases is our fear of pain (as the result of crime).
5
48%
EN
Our common sense seems to regard hedonism as an unworthy theory of value. Two main arguments, resting on our intuitions, are commonly presented against it. The first ridicules hedonism as “a theory fit for pigs”, that is for people who care only about simple physical pleasures. The second seeks to refute hedonism on the assumption that no one would like to live a life that is nothing else but a hedonic reflection of her or his mind. Robert Nozick used this intuition to build his famous “experience machine example”. The purpose of this article is to suggest that the intuitions underlying these arguments, are based on nonrational presuppositions and therefore are not the best ways to confront hedonism.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.