Some readers might have put effort into libertarianism. Party candidates can place ahead of competing groups. Fox News media personalities identify with the movement. Still, only through gaining a chance familiarity with a philosophical title, The Stone Reader, has a work associated with the Libertarian Party, Anarchy, State, & Utopia, become known. The latter book and the ideology’s future are different, but not dichotomous, matters here.
It has been a few years since David Sosa’s piece informed me indirectly of Robert Nozick’s work product, which is largely a critique of their peer John Rawls, who employs a “Veil of ignorance” to convey liberal ideas. Among reasons for lacking exposure to Nozick could be that his book was recognized in the National Book Award’s Nonfiction subcategory of “Philosophy and Religion,” in 1975. Evidently there has not been a philosophy subcategory since. There are reports that Nozick ultimately “refused to be called a Libertarian.” It makes sense that it is easier for those involved with philosophy to dedicate energies where affirmation is still available, maybe pursuant to Nobel Prizes in Literature (e.g. Camus or Sartre)?
Richard Nixon’s final year in office was 1974. After the conviction of Spiro Agnew in 1973, Gerald Ford became Nixon’s next vice president. There was a year or two of the Watergate Scandal before Ford pardoned Nixon, who had resigned as president. Whether the events influenced the writing or recognition of Anarchy, State, & Utopia, there were reasons for background disillusionment with government. My note pad is filled with information dutifully recorded from the 1974 book.
To summarize my own understanding, hopefully with the support of its champions, libertarianism itself may be described as a movement about personal freedom. There are a multitude of implications. Libertarians can support the political left on women’s rights, drug legalization and opposition to the death penalty. However, aims align with a conservative right to bear arms and elimination of regulation.
Per Nozick, only the smallest state is justifiable. He contends that it is wrong to take things that belong to others, such as through taxation. Here are several quotes:
Alternatively, one may hold that, despite popularity among some politicians and dictums of corporate responsibility, moral arguments are nondescript or don’t offer substance. In a way they are a matter of psychology. As with the mongol conquest, right and wrong can involve relativism. Nozick skips such issues.
Setting the philosophical strength of a moral position aside, the redistribution topic might almost entirely be comprised within the realm of economics. There are non-economists who’ve put time into the field in varied ways. It is my opinion that Nozick, at the least, tries to throw a bone to economists here and there. He references marginal product, externalities and indifference curves among other topics. The index page lists multiple entries for both Friedrich Hayek and Kenneth Arrow; and one for Plato, who comes up under the subheading of a chapter section entitled “Macro and micro.” Nozick may actually attempt to allocate meaty bones for an economists’ feast by depriving philosophers of legs to stand on.
There is a branch of philosophy that is known as analytic. A descriptive article contradicts it with continental philosophy, known for pieces authored by native Europeans in their own languages. According to it, “clarity, precision, and logical rigor…continue to define the standards for a type of philosophy that calls itself analytic and is dominant in English-speaking countries.” Several writers are cited as examples, Rawls among them; not Nozick who seems to meet that definition.
However, there certainly are prospects for pursuit of libertarianism and its growth. Merchandise that provokes thought is available. Applicability is extensive.
Provision of health care would not be compelled in Nozick’s society. Yet, on the environment, he writes, “If a pollution activity is to be allowed…those who benefit actually should compensate those upon whom the pollution costs are initially thrown (pg 86).” Presumably government is needed when there is contamination, although there could be sufficient power within a minimal (police?) state.
There are details and specifics about property. “Actions that risk crossing another’s boundary pose serious problems to the natural rights position (pg 74).” There would seem to be material for an argument against illegal immigration, though maybe not asylum claims. He says, “An owner’s property right in the only island in an area does not allow him to order a castaway from a shipwreck off his island as a trespasser, for this would violate the Lockean proviso [‘that there be enough as good left for others’] (pg 180).” Further, he argues that a market price is needed to compensate for a border crossing because a fee commensurate with an imaginary negotiation would be unfair. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, or expanded judiciary capacity, need be enabled by taxation and therefore their existence is not easily justifiable in such a society.
There are things that require a funded state. Nozick probably would not have swung his knife at me for saying so; still, hopefully a police officer could observe necessary avoidance of one. A reader might suspect he could only duck Nietzsche, among others.
It has been a few years since David Sosa’s piece informed me indirectly of Robert Nozick’s work product, which is largely a critique of their peer John Rawls, who employs a “Veil of ignorance” to convey liberal ideas. Among reasons for lacking exposure to Nozick could be that his book was recognized in the National Book Award’s Nonfiction subcategory of “Philosophy and Religion,” in 1975. Evidently there has not been a philosophy subcategory since. There are reports that Nozick ultimately “refused to be called a Libertarian.” It makes sense that it is easier for those involved with philosophy to dedicate energies where affirmation is still available, maybe pursuant to Nobel Prizes in Literature (e.g. Camus or Sartre)?
Richard Nixon’s final year in office was 1974. After the conviction of Spiro Agnew in 1973, Gerald Ford became Nixon’s next vice president. There was a year or two of the Watergate Scandal before Ford pardoned Nixon, who had resigned as president. Whether the events influenced the writing or recognition of Anarchy, State, & Utopia, there were reasons for background disillusionment with government. My note pad is filled with information dutifully recorded from the 1974 book.
To summarize my own understanding, hopefully with the support of its champions, libertarianism itself may be described as a movement about personal freedom. There are a multitude of implications. Libertarians can support the political left on women’s rights, drug legalization and opposition to the death penalty. However, aims align with a conservative right to bear arms and elimination of regulation.
Per Nozick, only the smallest state is justifiable. He contends that it is wrong to take things that belong to others, such as through taxation. Here are several quotes:
- “The minimal state is the most extensive that can be justified. Any state more extensive violates people’s rights (pg 149).”
- “The fact that others intentionally intervene, in violation of a side constraint against aggression, to threaten force to limit the alternatives, in this case to paying taxes or (presumably the worse alternative) bare subsistence, makes the taxation system one of forced labor and distinguishes it from other cases of limited choices which are not forcings (pg 169).”
- “…constraints are set by other principles or laws operating in the society; in other theory, by the Lockean rights people possess (under the minimal state). My property rights in my knife allow me to leave it where I will, but not in your chest (pg 171).”
- “…laboring to improve something makes it more valuable; and anyone is entitled to own a thing whose value he has created (pg 175).”
- “Private property enables people to decide on the pattern and type of rights they wish to bear, lending to specialized types of risk bearing (pg 177).”
- “A medical researcher who synthesizes a new substance [probably from chemicals that are readily available] that effectively treats a certain disease and who refuses to sell except on his terms does not worsen the situation of others by depriving them of whatever he has appropriated (pg 181; he continues about health care on 233).”
Alternatively, one may hold that, despite popularity among some politicians and dictums of corporate responsibility, moral arguments are nondescript or don’t offer substance. In a way they are a matter of psychology. As with the mongol conquest, right and wrong can involve relativism. Nozick skips such issues.
Setting the philosophical strength of a moral position aside, the redistribution topic might almost entirely be comprised within the realm of economics. There are non-economists who’ve put time into the field in varied ways. It is my opinion that Nozick, at the least, tries to throw a bone to economists here and there. He references marginal product, externalities and indifference curves among other topics. The index page lists multiple entries for both Friedrich Hayek and Kenneth Arrow; and one for Plato, who comes up under the subheading of a chapter section entitled “Macro and micro.” Nozick may actually attempt to allocate meaty bones for an economists’ feast by depriving philosophers of legs to stand on.
There is a branch of philosophy that is known as analytic. A descriptive article contradicts it with continental philosophy, known for pieces authored by native Europeans in their own languages. According to it, “clarity, precision, and logical rigor…continue to define the standards for a type of philosophy that calls itself analytic and is dominant in English-speaking countries.” Several writers are cited as examples, Rawls among them; not Nozick who seems to meet that definition.
However, there certainly are prospects for pursuit of libertarianism and its growth. Merchandise that provokes thought is available. Applicability is extensive.
Provision of health care would not be compelled in Nozick’s society. Yet, on the environment, he writes, “If a pollution activity is to be allowed…those who benefit actually should compensate those upon whom the pollution costs are initially thrown (pg 86).” Presumably government is needed when there is contamination, although there could be sufficient power within a minimal (police?) state.
There are details and specifics about property. “Actions that risk crossing another’s boundary pose serious problems to the natural rights position (pg 74).” There would seem to be material for an argument against illegal immigration, though maybe not asylum claims. He says, “An owner’s property right in the only island in an area does not allow him to order a castaway from a shipwreck off his island as a trespasser, for this would violate the Lockean proviso [‘that there be enough as good left for others’] (pg 180).” Further, he argues that a market price is needed to compensate for a border crossing because a fee commensurate with an imaginary negotiation would be unfair. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, or expanded judiciary capacity, need be enabled by taxation and therefore their existence is not easily justifiable in such a society.
There are things that require a funded state. Nozick probably would not have swung his knife at me for saying so; still, hopefully a police officer could observe necessary avoidance of one. A reader might suspect he could only duck Nietzsche, among others.