David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Law and Philosophy 28 (6):585 - 616 (2009)
Central to Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia is a defense of the legitimacy of the minimal state’s use of coercion against anarchist objections. Individuals acting within their natural rights can establish the state without committing wrongdoing against those who disagree. Nozick attempts to show that even with a natural executive right, individuals need not actually consent to incur political obligations. Nozick’s argument relies on an account of compensation to remedy the infringement of the non-consenters’ procedural rights. Compensation, however, cannot remedy the infringement, for either it is superfluous to Nozick’s account of procedural rights, or it is made to play a role inconsistent with Nozick’s liberal voluntarist commitments. Nevertheless, Nozick’s account of procedural rights contains clues for how to solve the problem. Since procedural rights are incompatible with a natural executive right, Nozickeans can argue that only the state can enforce individuals’ rights without wronging anyone, thus refuting the anarchist.
|Keywords||Philosophy Political Science Law Theory/Law Philosophy Philosophy of Law|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Richard J. Arneson (2005). The Shape of Lockean Rights: Fairness, Pareto, Moderation, and Consent. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (1):255-285.
Charles Sayward & Wayne Wasserman (1981). Has Nozick Justified the State? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62 (4):411-415.
Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred Dycus Miller & Jeffrey Paul (eds.) (2005). Natural Rights Liberalism From Locke to Nozick. Cambridge University Press.
Onora O'Neill (1976). II. Nozick's Entitlements. Inquiry 19 (1-4):468-481.
Peter Vallentyne (2007). Review of Dale F. Murray, Nozick, Autonomy and Compensation. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (12).
Murray Rothbard (1977). Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State. Journal of Libertarian Studies 1 (1):45-57.
Randy Barnett (1977). Whither Anarchy? Has Robert Nozick Justified the State? Journal of Libertarian Studies 1 (1):15-21.
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.
Nicolas Maloberti (2010). The Squirrel and the State. The Independent Review 14 (3):377-387.
Added to index2009-04-20
Total downloads60 ( #39,713 of 1,699,829 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #161,079 of 1,699,829 )
How can I increase my downloads?