Anarchy meth cookbook

1. Introduction
These are from my notes from years ago.
Propertarianism, misleadingly called 'libertarianism' by its fans, is a political philosophy. Do any supposedly rigorous arguments exist for this philosophy? Some cite Robert Nozick's 1974 tome, Anarchy, State, and Utopia as a demonstration that this question can be answered in the affirmative.
The book has three main parts. In the first part, Nozick argues that a state can emerge from an anarchistic state of nature without violating anybody's rights. The state, according to Nozick, evolves from a private protection agency; its clients become citizens. In the second part, Nozick argues that a state that tries be to more than a minimal state will violate somebody's rights, especially their right to property. For the distribution of property to be just, according to Nozick, three conditions must be met:

• The original acquisition of property must not have violated anybody's rights.
• The transfer of holdings must be likewise just.
• Whatever injustices may nevertheless have arisen in original acquisition or transfer must be rectified justly.

In the last part, Nozick provides a recipe for cookbooks of the future. He describe an association of voluntary communities, where people are free to join whichever commune they like. Only some of these communities may initially be propertarian.
This obvious decomposition of the book explains the three-word title. Despite Nozick's pretense to be presenting an analytic argument, I did not find nearly as much structure at a lower level. The first part seems to beg how people in an original anarchy would behave. Nozick postulates bourgeois contract-making; I think feudalism would more likely result. He continually brings up objections and needed refinements, pursues the argument to an arbitrary level, and then declares the resolution of these details beyond his scope since he is not writing a work of psychology or epistemology or whatever. So I find it difficult to summarize much more of the book.
2. Popular Bits
I think Nozick originated many sayings now popular among propertarians. Maybe some he reformulated or re-emphasized.
Nozick's calls his version of Descartes' demon "The Experience Machine". His story is a science fiction story with technology, tanks to float in, and computers. It raises the question, "What else can matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?"
Nozick formulates a non-aggression principle, a no-initiation-of-force principle in propertarian polemics:

"An underlying notion sufficiently powerful to support moral side constraints against the powerful intuitive force of the end-state maximizing view will suffice to derive a libertarian constraint on aggression against another."

Nozick creates a well-known example with Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt Chamberlain's contract with a basketball team gives him a share of the gate. People "cheerfully attend his team's game". Nozick's imagines that when they buy their tickets, part of the price is that each person "drops" 25 cents "of their admission price into a special box with Chamberlain's name on it." What can be wrong with all of these voluntary transactions making Chamberlin rich? In the course of this exposition, he comes up with a clever turn of phrase:

"The socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." (my emphasis)

3. Some Absurdities
Nozick's book is a work of political philosophy containing much economic reasoning. But Nozick makes many mistakes in economics, and ignores what seems to me some major problems in political philosophy.
For example, I think a major question in political philosophy is how people with different ideas of good and evil can live together. I read the following as Nozick acknowledging he doesn't address this question (others tell me that he is saying he is assuming differences will persist):

"I have proceeded in this essay (as much as possible) without questioning or focusing upon the assumption common to much utopian and anarchist theorizing, that there is some set of principles obvious enough to be accepted by all men of good will, precise enough to give unambiguous guidance on particular situations, clear enough so that all will realize its dictates, and complete enough to cover all problems that actually will arise. To have rested the case for the state on the denial of such an assumption would have left the hope that the future progress of humanity (and moral philosophy) might yield such agreement, and so might undercut the rationale for the state.
... the day seem[s] distant when all men of good will shall agree to libertarian principles... People who prefer peace to the enforcement of their view of right will unite together in one state."

In contrast to my opinion, Nozick thinks Marxian exploitation is a normative idea:

"One traditional socialist view is that workers are entitled to the product and full fruits of their labor; they have earned it; a distribution is unjust if it does not give the workers what they are entitled to."

Nozick does foreshadow John Roemer's game-theoretic definition of exploitation:

"An individual benefits from the wider system of extensive cooperation between the better and the worse endowed to the extent of his incremental gain from this wider cooperation; namely, the amount by which his share under a scheme of general cooperation is greater than it would be under one of limited intra-group (but not cross-group) cooperation."

Nozick formulates "a condition of stable associations" much like this in the third part of his book.
Nozick doesn't understand marginal productivity. He incorrectly thinks that it is a theory of distribution:

"Almost every suggested principle of distributive justice is patterned: to each according to his moral merit, or needs, or marginal product, or how hard he tries, or..."

I could cite many more instances in which Nozick makes this mistake. Marginal productivity, correctly stated, is a theory of the choice of technique. Walras was correct here.
Nozick erroneously ignores the possibilities of multiple equilibria and of path dependence:

"Let us suppose that we know from economic theory that under the standard assumptions defining a competitive market economy, income and wealth will be distributed in an efficient way, and that the particular efficient distribution which results in any period of time is determined by the initial distribution of assets, that is, by the initial distribution of income and wealth, and of natural talents and abilities. With each initial distribution, a definite efficient outcome is arrived at."

Also, Nozick begs the question of the definition of property rights, of how a society determines what can be a commodity and what cannot.
Nozick has a definite view on the always burning question of whether or not slavery is compatible with propertarianism. He thinks it is:

"Perhaps no persons completely sell themselves into slavery... Since this very extensive domination of some persons by others arises by a series of legimate steps, via voluntary exchanges, from an initial situation that is not unjust, it itself is not unjust."

And again:

"The comparable question about an individual is whether a free system will allow him to sell himself into slavery. I believe that it would."

4. Conclusion
I do not find Nozick's book convincing, which is probably not surprising. You might want to read it to understand some context for certain debates in political philosophy. Nozick treats Rawls in the second part of his book. Before having read Nozick, I already knew about some of the popular bits from having read Alan Haworth. Nozick tends to be cited by many soi-disant libertarians - I suspect by more than have actually read him.

She REALLY thought that she would win!
Jessica, it was a fluke that you made it to the Top 5. Why do you think that you should have won? What family values do you have? For shits & giggles let's list them:
1. Used meth and drank while pregnant with your daughters;
2. Stayed completely wasted on meth for most of your oldest daughters' childhood;
3. Made fun of your younger daughters' hair, you know, because of "their" kind of hair;
4. Took your minor child out of school and lied to the school about why she was being taken out;
5. Showed your daughters that lying and stealing is the way to get "up" in life;
6. Educated your youngest that she too can quit a stable job to make videos;
7. Taught your daughters the art of scamming people;
8. Instilled in your daughters that they don't really need to work for something; just dry beg;
9. Presented your family with a good example of how to hide behind religion to distract, steer and guide your followers away from anything that will blow your cover;
10. Allowed another woman who you barely knew to get very close to your minor daughter;
11. Allowed this same woman, who is younger and thinner, to stay at your house, to get chummy with your husband;
12. Lied to your followers and family members about having diabetes;
13. Showed your husband and daughters that they can lie, cheat, steal and scam, but it's OK to go to church and put on airs and lie to the entire congregation;
14. Taught your children that they shouldn't take anyone into consideration when flaunting any new purchases;
15. Displayed disrespectful behavior in front of your minor child;
16. Educated your daughters and any young followers that if they want something they don't need to work for it, simply steal it;
17. Set the example for your youngest daughter that she doesn't need to save money, buy whatever you want;
18. Showed your daughters and any young followers that it is permissible to pull up one's shirt or pull one's pants down on social media;
19. Appeared to be either in tears or about to cry to scam followers out of money and gifts;
20. Demonstrated to your family that you can make it to "the top" by buying your way up;
21. Showed your impressionable daughter that if she doesn't like something about her features, she can always use a filter and lie to people, even possibly catfish someone;
22. Lied to your followers that you have lost 195lbs., when you obviously gained weight;
23. Taught your daughters that it is OK to not pay bills, even if it's to bury their grandma;
24. Set an example for your younger daughter that lying to people is better than showing accountability;
25. Presented a cookbook that is 99% recipes from the back of boxes and cans, but she can tell her followers that she "wrote" a book and have "publishers" although none of that is true;
26. Cried to your followers that your half brother that you barely know has died, but right after the funeral you and your sister are dressed up like going to a club, and you take selfies right outside a restaurant;
27. Left your children in AL but brought the same friend mentioned above. Of course we never even saw her. We believe that she paid for all of Michael and Jessica's' expenses.
28. and MUCH more!

It occurred to me, that while most of you who are on the frauditor ass kissing train are incels that live in mommy’s basement, there might be a few of you that have managed to hump your sisters once or twice and reproduce. I have an honest question to ask you, we currently live in a world where children have to have active shooter drills because it can and does happen. Where they don’t know if it could happen to them. Look past your criminal background and problem with authority and ask yourself this. If you TRULY think that these slugs are right and anyone can do what they want, where they want without interference, do you believe that they are legally in the right to wander around elementary schools in ski masks and bullet proof vests and cameras, possibly terrifying children with something they don’t understand in a space that should be SAFE for them, mentally, emotionally and physically? You really think that’s ok? No qualms about it? Keep in mind, this has absolutely nothing to with keeping the government accountable or the first amendment because they are posting to YouTube and tik tok, that the first amendment absolutely doesn’t apply. You are being led by the nose by douchebags with napoleon complexes, feeding into your hatred for authority at the detriment of THE PEOPLE. How about hospitals? When yer sister Fanny Mae is laying there with her legs side spread giving birth to your nephew/son and creepy David has his camera pressed up against the window in the door to make sure to catch that “news”? Or gramma burned herself with moonshine when the still blew up and is naked getting skin grafts? VA hospital? Sexual assault centers run by the city? Orphanages? Take the frauditor dick out of your mouth, close the 90s edition of the anarchist cookbook, understand how sick and stupid it is to feed these insects and maybe, just maybe, think for yourself. There are ways to demand government accountability without this because THIS bullshit is nothing but douchebags and thundercunts using YouTube to feed their meth habits.