This is addressed to both sides:
Can’t we just focus on discussing the validity of specific ideas of famous thinkers? All this “Professor A in GENERAL is better!” ; “No Professor B is!” is about as productive as a comic book forum “Superman vs. Hulk” debate.
Everyone knows Superman is way cooler than the Hulk!
As soon as someone engages one of the argument he actually made I’ll be sure to weigh in. So far, the only thing that has happened is people pointing out that his conclusion in ASU supports minarchy and that supposedly he was a bad person for relying on some rent law to get what he wanted.
P.S. I’m an anarchist, so don’t expect me to defend Nozick’s mistaken move in ASU.
I see the point your making, but would you really put Nozick with Quine and Popper? That might be going a little too far in my opinion.
I’m not too impressed by intuitionist arguments Nozick puts forth and I am also not one for open-ended puzzles as a style of philosophising. His work is still very clear and intelligently written and libertarians would do well to read it on account of its quality. It is a credit to our movement to have someone like him in it. Keep in mind I say this as a rather ardent Hoppean, but then again Hoppe himself often praises thinkers who disagree with him on many matters, so perhaps people should question what is the problem with Nozick and mention what they’ve read of his to assess whether their claims have any merit…