Consent
| Abstract | The Lockean natural rights tradition—including its libertarian branch-- is a work in progress.1 Thirty years after the publication of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick’s classic work of political theory is still regarded by academic philosophers as the authoritative statement of right-wing libertarian Lockeanism in the Ayn Rand mold.2 Despite the classic status of this great book, its tone is not at all magisterial, but improvisational, quirky, tentative, and exploratory. Its author has more questions than answers. On some central foundational questions he refrains from taking a stand. There is spadework yet to be done on the project of developing the most plausible versions of Lockean and Lockean libertarian views. Prior to doing this work, and articulating the sensible alternatives and what can be said for and against them, we are not yet in a position reasonably to opt for any particular version of Lockean theory or for that matter to decide between the natural rights tradition and rival consequentialisms. This essay aims to explore hard and soft versions of Lockean theory. The exploration aims to persuade the reader to favor the soft versions. Section I formulates four claims (all asserted by Nozick) and provisionally identifies the Lockean libertarian view with these claims. Section II notes that although Nozick in his 1974 book made scant progress toward providing a justification of his particular doctrine of rights, compared to rivals, no rights theorist since then has made significant advances on that front, so Nozick’s achievement has not been superseded. Nozick’s view of rights as side constraints is rehearsed. Sections III and IV raise a question that Nozick first posed: Should rights be regarded as specifying ways individuals may not be treated, infringement of which is sometimes, or always, or never morally acceptable provided full compensation is paid to any victims? Hard libertarianism is defined as a version of Lockean libertarianism that replies “Never!” to this question along with offering strict interpretation and uncompromising affirmation of the four provisional claims detailed in Section I.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesRalf M. Bader & John Meadowcroft (eds.) (2011). The Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Cambridge University Press.
Helga Varden (2009). Nozick's Reply to the Anarchist. Law and Philosophy 28 (6):585 - 616.
Adrian Bardon (2000). From Nozick to Welfare Rights: Self‐Ownership, Property, and Moral Desert. Critical Review 14 (4):481-501.
Nicolas Maloberti (2010). The Squirrel and the State. The Independent Review 14 (3):377-387.
Jeremy Waldron (2005). Nozick and Locke: Filling the Space of Rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):81-110.
Helga Varden (2009). Nozick's Reply to the Anarchist What He Said and What He Should Have Said About Procedural Rights. Law and Philosophy 28 (6):585-616.
Michael Zuckert (2005). Natural Rights and Imperial Constitutionalism: The American Revolution and the Development of the American Amalgam. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):27-55.
Richard J. Arneson (2005). The Shape of Lockean Rights: Fairness, Pareto, Moderation, and Consent. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):255-285.
Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred Dycus Miller & Jeffrey Paul (eds.) (2005). Natural Rights Liberalism From Locke to Nozick. Cambridge University Press.
David Schmidtz (ed.) (2002). Robert Nozick. Cambridge University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads66 ( #13,644 of 549,128 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,263 of 549,128 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
