Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State (Key Contemporary Thinkers)

By Jonathan Wolff

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, kingdom, and Utopia is among the works which dominate modern debate in political philosophy. Drawing on conventional assumptions linked to individualism and libertarianism, Nozick mounts a strong argument for a minimum "night-watchman" country and demanding situations the perspectives of many modern philosophers, so much particularly John Rawls.

This booklet is the 1st full-length learn of Nozick's paintings and of the debates to which it has given upward push. Wolff situates Nozick's paintings within the context of present debates and examines the traditions that have inspired his concept. He then severely reconstructs the most important arguments of Anarchy, country, and Utopia, targeting Nozick's doctrine of rights, his derivation of the minimum nation, and his Entitlement concept of Justice. Wolff matters Nozick's reasoning to rigorous scrutiny and argues that, regardless of the seductive simplicity of Nozick's libertarianism, it truly is, in spite of everything, neither believable nor fully coherent. The publication concludes by means of assessing Nozick's position in modern political philosophy.

Show description

Preview of Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State (Key Contemporary Thinkers) PDF

Best Political Theory books

The Rehnquist Court and the Constitution

Within the Rehnquist courtroom and the structure, Tinsley Yarbrough presents a finished examine latest best courtroom Justices and their record--a learn the entire extra priceless for the Court's combined judgements and hard-to-categorize direction. An comprehensive biographer, Yarbrough bargains incisive images of the 9 who now sit down at the excessive bench, and tellingly stories their nomination hearings.

Just Marriage (New Democracy Forum)

From the floor breaking criminal judgements on homosexual marriage to the merchandising of marriage for low-income households, the "sacred establishment" of marriage has changed into a public battleground. Who will be allowed to marry and is marriage a public or inner most act? may still marriage be deserted thoroughly? Or may still marriage be redefined as a civil establishment that promotes sexual and racial equality?

The Multiculturalism of Fear

This very important new liberal account of multiculturalism combines an research of the coverage dilemmas confronted by way of multiethnic states around the globe with a philosophical attention of multiculturalism and nationalism. Jacob T. Levy boldly argues that liberalism shouldn't be centrally occupied with both maintaining or transcending cultural groups, practices, and identities.

Rousseau's Theodicy of Self-Love: Evil, Rationality, and the Drive for Recognition

This booklet is the 1st accomplished learn of Rousseau's wealthy and complicated concept of the kind of self-love (amour propre ) that, for him, marks the important distinction among people and the beasts. Amour propre is the eagerness that drives human contributors to hunt the esteem, approval, admiration, or love--the acceptance --of their fellow beings.

Additional info for Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State (Key Contemporary Thinkers)

Show sample text content

We saw, given Honore’s analysis of property and Cheyney Ryan’s argument, that this is not necessarily the case, for it is possible to have rights to possess and use, without also enjoying rights to transfer. So what is Nozick’s argument? Does anything in his defence of private property rights lead us to conclude that these rights are transferable? As far as I can see, Nozick’s only attempt to answer this is to try out to make his declare real by means of whatever like definition. He writes: ‘The significant center of the notion of a property right in X … is the right to determine what shall be done with x’ (171). yet in the absence of additional argument we have no cause to finish that humans have property rights in any sense that includes the right to transfer that property however they wish. So we must conclude that there is yet another gap in entitlement theory. no matter what Nozick’s intentions could be, I imagine we are certain to finish that he provides nothing like an adequate theory of justice in acquisition, and so the entitlement theory remains substantially undefended. How embarrassing this gap should be for Nozick is an issue to which we shall go back in the subsequent bankruptcy. yet we needs to first glance at the 3rd part of the entitlement theory: the principle of justice in rectification. Justice in Rectification Nozick first and foremost supplies the influence that the factor of justice in rectification is a particularly minor matter of making a few adjustments here and there to remedy past wrongs. However, if Nozick’s view is that we may still treatment all wrongs which, in accordance to entitlement idea, have occurred, then the prospect is mind-boggling. All state transfer payments are, on Nozick’s view, illegitimate. The purely valid kinds of taxation are, in accordance to Nozick, to fund defence, the police, and the management of justice. somebody who has ever obtained kingdom health benefits, grants, bursaries, welfare payments, child benefit, rent support, and so on, has, in accordance to libertarianism, received money which rightfully belongs to others. additionally, many present holdings can ultimately be traced back to conquest by force or fraud. Lyons takes these speculations further and even considers the question of whether, on Nozick’s view, much of the United States should be returned to the American Indians. fifty two Nozick, in fact, is aware of some of the problems likely to be encountered in devising and applying such a principle. First, there is the question of the extent of the wrong committed, and the valuable reparation. Stephen Dedalus in Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a younger guy asks whether, if a man steals a pound and makes a fortune, he must pay back that pound, or the entire fortune. Nozick must find an answer. Second, there is the question of whether it is ever right ‘to let bygones be bygones’. That is, ‘how far must one go in wiping clean the historical slate of injustices?

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.21 of 5 – based on 15 votes