Whither anarchy`? Has Robert Nozick justified the state?
| Abstract | One can appreciate Anarchy, State and Utopia on many levels. Its emphasis on individual freedom is a refreshing change of pace. It questions assumptions that have long been sacrosanct. It puts forth a theory of entitlement which is nothing short of remarkable in this day and age. And most importantly, it is being taken seriously by the press and, hopefully, the establishment philosophers as well. But Professor Nozick has attempted more than this. He has attempted to refute the anarchist position. This is a rare endeavor. Few have taken the anarchist position seriously enough to refute it. Few understand it well enough to do it justice. Dr. Nozick displays an intimate knowledge of the anarchist position and yet he rejects it. His refutation is novel, intricate and many-faceted. But does it succeed? In this paper I shall try to outline a few reasons why I think it does not. Nozick begins by asserting that "Individuals have rights..." (ix).§ The purpose of the “first part of his book (the _only part which we shall treat here) is to see if it is possible to evolve a state or "state-like entity" (118} without any violation of individual rights. I-Ie concludes that such a thing is possible and likely as well. I shall confine my examination to the possibility that a state might exist which does not violate individual rights ab initio. ‘ln a state of nature an individual may himself enforce his rights, defend himself. | |||||||||
| 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: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesDavid Schmidtz (ed.) (2002). Robert Nozick. Cambridge University Press.
Peter Vallentyne (2007). Review of Dale F. Murray, Nozick, Autonomy and Compensation. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (12).
Richard J. Arneson (2005). The Shape of Lockean Rights: Fairness, Pareto, Moderation, and Consent. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):255-285.
Ralf 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 What He Said and What He Should Have Said About Procedural Rights. Law and Philosophy 28 (6):585-616.
Charles Sayward & Wayne Wasserman (1981). Has Nozick Justified the State? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62:411-415.
Nicolas Maloberti (2010). The Squirrel and the State. The Independent Review 14 (3):377-387.
Helga Varden (2009). Nozick's Reply to the Anarchist. Law and Philosophy 28 (6):585 - 616.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-02-16Total downloads75 ( #10,903 of 549,754 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,807 of 549,754 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
