{"title":"对COVID封锁的反驳","authors":"Norbert Slenzok","doi":"10.35297/001c.89848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Block (2022) takes issue with Slenzok’s (2021) argument against universal antipandemic restrictions (UAPR) developed in the context of COVID-19. He purports to have concocted a thought experiment that invalidates Slenzok’s analysis. In this brief reply, it is demonstrated that Block’s scenario is beside the point and that his (qualified) pro-UAPR position is premised on a notion of agnosticism which, if followed consistently, would render libertarianism utterly inapplicable to real-life conditions.","PeriodicalId":83116,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of libertarian studies","volume":"428 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rejoinder to Block on COVID\",\"authors\":\"Norbert Slenzok\",\"doi\":\"10.35297/001c.89848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Block (2022) takes issue with Slenzok’s (2021) argument against universal antipandemic restrictions (UAPR) developed in the context of COVID-19. He purports to have concocted a thought experiment that invalidates Slenzok’s analysis. In this brief reply, it is demonstrated that Block’s scenario is beside the point and that his (qualified) pro-UAPR position is premised on a notion of agnosticism which, if followed consistently, would render libertarianism utterly inapplicable to real-life conditions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83116,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of libertarian studies\",\"volume\":\"428 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of libertarian studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35297/001c.89848\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of libertarian studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35297/001c.89848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Block (2022) takes issue with Slenzok’s (2021) argument against universal antipandemic restrictions (UAPR) developed in the context of COVID-19. He purports to have concocted a thought experiment that invalidates Slenzok’s analysis. In this brief reply, it is demonstrated that Block’s scenario is beside the point and that his (qualified) pro-UAPR position is premised on a notion of agnosticism which, if followed consistently, would render libertarianism utterly inapplicable to real-life conditions.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
