|Abstract||In his book, Anarchy , State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues that the only state that can be justified is the minimal state, a state limited to providing protection for all its citizens. Nozick explains how a minimal state could naturally develop from a state of nature without violating any person's rights, allowing for its justification. Whereas, any more extensive state would violate people's rights in performing its various roles, causing such a state to be unjustified. In this thesis, I demonstrate that Nozick's claims about the justification of states may be false. I argue that in order for Nozick's claims to be sustained one must accept some critical assumptions he has made concerning the minimal and more extensive states. Yet, I argue, even if one accepts such assumptions, Nozick's claims may still be false. For, depending upon how one chooses to identify a state, the state that Nozick believes he has justified may actually be considered a more extensive state. In his book, Nozick does not examine how a state, limited to protection, will try to fulfill its single function of protection. I argue that how a state fulfills that single function may cause it to be considered a more extensive state. Therefore, Nozick's claim that no more extensive state than the minimal state is justified would be false|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Charles Sayward & Wayne Wasserman (1981). Has Nozick Justified the State? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62:411-415.
Ralf M. Bader (2011). The Framework for Utopia. In 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.
Nicolas Maloberti (2010). The Squirrel and the State. The Independent Review 14 (3):377-387.
Richard A. Epstein (2005). One Step Beyond Nozick's Minimal State: The Role of Forced Exchanges in Political Theory. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):286-313.
Robert Nozick (1988). Side Constraints. In Samuel Scheffler (ed.), Consequentialism and its Critics. Oxford University Press.
John T. Sanders (1977). The Free Market Model Versus Government: A Reply to Nozick. Journal of Libertarian Studies 1 (1):35-44.
Ralf M. Bader & John Meadowcroft (eds.) (2011). The Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Cambridge University Press.
David Schmidtz (ed.) (2002). Robert Nozick. 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.
Alan Ryan (1992). Book Review: Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State. Jonathan Wolff. [REVIEW] Ethics 103 (1):154-.
Peter Vallentyne (2007). Review of Dale F. Murray, Nozick, Autonomy and Compensation. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (12).
John Hasnas (2003). Reflections on the Minimal State. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 2 (1):115-128.
Added to index2012-06-08
Total downloads2 ( #232,382 of 549,060 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,060 )
How can I increase my downloads?