Talk:Invariances

2007 comments
Re/ the flexibility of the libertairan position expressed in "Invariances", i'm not quite sure it's as simple as you put it. Nozick specifically affirms that, according to him, the most important level what concerns enforcement remains that of the ethics of respect. See, for example: "rights of noninterference are what are to be most strongly mandated and enforced, thereby preserving room for people to pursue their own ends and goals" (p. 282). Though he reckons that his position his that of a minority, he develops (in a footnote)the idea that political/ethical dissent itself is "existing for a good social reason"... Besides, from the divergences of approach and general method in his books (including EL -whose approach is mostly aesthetic/symbolic), his own confession (see the interview with Julian Sanchez, linked on the ASU page, where he clearly dismisses claims of his abandoning libertarianism for democracy), and comments by a few libertarians philosophers who knew him (eg, Narveson & Lomasky), he (& the message in Invariances) was much more radical libertarian than is suggested in your article. Do you think you could tone down that part a bit? M-la-maudite 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

2009 comments
If the section headings in this article are titles of sections or chapters of the book, I think it should say so.

If not, then those capital initial letters (other than the first letter of each section heading) are incorrect, per WP:MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and now I've altered the format accordingly, after looking at it via Google Books. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)