It's very easy to win philosophical arguments if you put words in the mouth of your opponents.
Epstein did not say that "the government should only step in to take property away from small owners on behalf of large ones." Consider what led you to assume that only large owners could be building railroads, and only small owners could own property along the way. That's certainly a possible case, but what makes you think it's the only case?
"That's how libertarians think" is not a good answer.
In all seriousness, I would sincerely recommend considering how the anarchist belief in the potential of enlightened self-interest relates to the Rawlsian state of nature.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-08 04:09 pm (UTC)Epstein did not say that "the government should only step in to take property away from small owners on behalf of large ones." Consider what led you to assume that only large owners could be building railroads, and only small owners could own property along the way. That's certainly a possible case, but what makes you think it's the only case?
"That's how libertarians think" is not a good answer.
In all seriousness, I would sincerely recommend considering how the anarchist belief in the potential of enlightened self-interest relates to the Rawlsian state of nature.
You do know Rawls, right?