A Quote by Robert Nozick

The socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults. — © Robert Nozick
The socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults.
The trouble with government regulation of the market is that it prohibits capitalistic acts between consenting adults.
Under a socialist mode of production all personal incentives which selfishness provides under capitalism are removed, and a premium is put upon laziness and negligence. Whereas in a capitalist society selfishness incites everyone to the utmost diligence, in a socialist society it makes for inertia and laxity.
I was brought up a working-class Tory. I believe, to be a true socialist, you have to be a capitalist first. In my heart, I'm a socialist; in my mind, I'm a capitalist.
Whether people choose to have same sex relationships or relationships outside the marriage - whatever happens between two consenting adults should be purely their business, not the state's or the society's.
I did have two dads; one was a socialist, and one was a capitalist. I really decided I would rather be a capitalist.
I'm all for bringing back the birch, but only between consenting adults.
Capitalism Survive?—I have tried to show that a socialist form of society will inevitably emerge from an equally inevitable decomposition of capitalist society.
I have no problem with two teams claiming to be national champions at the end of the year. But that's our society. We're dying to know who the champion is. Heaven forbid we have two. That would be socialist, right?
Anyone who turns love between two consenting adults into a negative, doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children.
We grew up in a very material-lacking socialist society, but today China is a capitalist society. It's very materialistic. It's full of desire and luxury goods.
If sexual relations between consenting adults are not part of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, then American democracy is in trouble.
From dwarf tossing to drug taking: The legislator has no place in voluntary exchanges between consenting adults, as dodgy and as dangerous as these might be.
I repeat to you-my own view is, is that if a State-if people decide to-what they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It's a free society, but it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage.
When you expand the definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman, society can expect other consenting adults in other configurations to say that their choices deserve recognition.
Defendants have not explained how allowing same-sex marriage between two consenting adults will at all prevent heterosexual spouses from caring for their biological children.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!