[Edward Feser] (author of [On Nozick] about Robert Nozick) on multiple strains of Libertar Ian-isms, some based on Natural Law, others not (Game Rule, etc.). Indeed, though he was personally an Agnost Ic, FAHayek held that the value of religion for shoring up the moral presuppositions of a free society cannot be overestimated... The trouble is, Nozick is also notoriously unclear about where natural rights, and in particular the right of self-ownership, come from. But surely what we take to be the source of rights cannot fail to imply, as it does in Locke, a specific moral view of the world. So if Nozick's position seems to allow for neutrality between all worldviews, this is arguably precisely because he is so vague about the grounds of [Natural Right]-s.

User Options Recent Changes Help Page