Anarchy, State and Utopia

Rating:
Summary: A truly central text
Review: "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" occupies a crucial position in the debate between liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, anarchism, neoliberalism, and conservatism. It's a key reading for anyone interested in political philosophy, contemporary political debates, or just general thoughtful reading. Nozick is a clever author and a brilliant theorist.

"Anarchy, State, and Utopia" is a classic in American political theory because it is so pertinent to themes dominating partisan political debates in America. Nozick begins by making a set of undefended assumptions: notions of individual freedom and the just acquisition of property. Many argue that Nozick's failure to defend these assumptions is problematic, but this criticism doesn't strike me as being particularly pertinent. It seems, rather, that Nozick is operating within the pregiven tradition of American political philosophy and discussing various social practices within the context of this tradition. In this sense, it is perfectly appropriate for him to automatically accept American political values since those are the context of his work.

Nozick begins by defending the existence of the State against anarcho-individualists, but ends up putting forward a thesis that is highly sympathetic with libertarian themes. For Nozick, individuals in the state of nature create government in order to ensure a basic order to the conducting of everyday life (it is this idea that makes his work so pertinent to the debates between Lockean and Hobbesian theory), but he goes on to argue that when the State takes on a life of its own and begins to engage in liberal programs like economic re-distribution, it has overstepped its boundaries. Private property and individual rights enjoy considerable sanctity in Nozick's thought, and Nozick considers involuntary economic re-distribution to be in a way a type of forced labor. Nozick's work is thus very relevant to the discussion of distributive justice in Rawls.

One (perhaps inconsequential) criticism I would level at Nozick is that he fails to maintain a stable subject position throughout is work. For example, he approaches government through a sort of thought-experiment regarding its ontogenesis (like Locke, Rawls, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.) and then critiques distributive justice from the position of ahistorical objective moral reasoning.

Rating:
Summary: Elitist reviews show why reading AS&U is important
Review: After reading AS&U twice, as well as, A Theory of Justice, I find it interesting how people's opinions are suppose to carry weight by their philosophical backgrounds. Personally, I think the combo of AS&U along with A Theory of Justice is intellectually stimulating. I would NOT recommend reading one without the other unless you are looking for a famous philosopher to quote therefore building credit for your own views. I lean more towards the libertarian views but I do not let that get in the way of a quality book like Rawl's. I also find it amusing that reviewers that are students of philosophy actually suggest that one author is right and one is wrong. The real argument is about the basis for Nozick's and Rawl's views. An argument is easily won if the author defines the problem.

Rating:
Summary: there are no 'rights'
Review: although well argued if new to the subject, nozick's work has many flaws. failing to decide whether he is a Kantian or Lockean being the first one. His 'Lockean proviso' is a reductio absurdum, and can be used to abolish private property itself. If people are means not ends (Kant), then how can one be forced to work for others, which is the natural result of his 'proviso' and 'full compensation'. But if there is capitalism, i.e. private ownership of public places and the means of production, people would have no means to exact that compensation via private police forces if they were for example, polluted against etc. They're more likely too busy working. Look at the amount of people in the US who dont have health insurance for example. Rothbard in the ethics of liberty (p.240) at least goes further and rejects the proviso allowing one to sell water from the only well to those dyig of thirst. The natural conclusion of 'libertarianism' perhaps? Although Rothbard's rejection of 'intellectual property' would make him reject the idea of current AIDS sufferers dying for inability to get cheap copies, presumably Nozick would support it as a 'just' outcome of the 'market'. Rothbard no doubt, would however, support for example women and children in the third world having forced preganancy tests for GAP factories as the owner of property must maintain his "final decision making power". Why I even bothered writing a review of this absurd book I dont know.

for a good critique of all things 'anarcho-capitalist' see http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

Rating:
Summary: Property Rights Absolutist
Review: Anarchy, State, and Utopia was published in the 1970s on the eve of Reaganism and Thatcherism. As the first libertarian treatise written by an analytic philosopher at a major university, it caused a sensation as much because of its novelty as because of its arguments. It's a hard book to characterize. On the one hand, many sections sparkle with brilliance and humor, and the text is filled with ingenious arguments. Unfortunately, ASU is also badly organized and occasionally unreadable. The analysis is abstract and technical, with few references to classical political thinkers (except for Locke) and little discussion of real-world political institutions. But whatever its merits or demerits, ASU has entered the canon of modern political theory.

Part 1 (Anarchy) argues against anarchism by showing how a "nightwatchman" government could emerge from the state of nature without anyone's rights being violated. This section, unfortunately, is packed with unreadable digressions. My advice to readers who already believe that government has a legitimate role -- and who already believe that stateless societies like Afghanistan or Somalia would be bad places to live in -- is to skim this section. However, the discussion of vegetariansim is interesting and The Experience Machine is one of the great thought experiments of modern philosophy.

Part 2 (State) is the heart of the book. Here Nozick attempts to show that no state more extensive than the "nightwatchman" state can be justified. He defends an "entitlement" theory of justice, which holds that any distribution of assets, no matter how unequal, is just so long as it arises through a process that violates no one's rights (and thus "entitles" the owners to hold their assets against all claims). The Wilt Chamberlain thought experiment -- another masterstroke -- shows how market transactions can upset just distributions of assets without creating injustice. Nozick contrasts "entitlement" approaches with "end-result" theories that focus attention on the distribution of assets at a point in time. Many pages are devoted to criticizing A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. So far as I could tell, the thrust of Nozick's complaint is that Rawls works within a philosophical framework that can't generate an entitlement theory of justice -- which seems to beg the question.

Part 3 (Utopia) deals with meta-utopian theory. To tell the truth, I skimmed it.

Nozick writes as if property rights are inviolable whenever property is acquired without violence or through voluntary exchanges, with the result that it is illegitimate for the government to redistribute wealth. To this extent, his argument is a reductio ad absurdum of libertarianism, since it entails that a 1 percent tax cannot permissibly be levied on Bill Gates in order to buy food for starving children. Since this conclusion is absurd yet follows logically from Nozick's premises, one or more of the premises must be invalid. My vote for the shakiest premise is the discussion of how the institution of property -- complete with "entitlements" -- gets started in the first place. Nozick writes as if property rights come into existence in the state of nature, with the "nightwatchman" state arising afterwards in order to protect them. He never considers the possibility that a government and legal system might be logically prior to property rights -- in which case, the rights might come into existence with "social" strings attached to them that limit their absolute nature. Take the case of limited liability corporations: their shares are bought and sold on markets, they own huge amounts of property -- yet they are entirely a creation of government-made law!

In fact, Nozick never really tries to establish "foundations" for his property rights theory at all, leaving a gigantic hole in his argument. It isn't clear in any event why libertarianism must rule out limited abridgements of property rights if these would enhance the real-world liberty of real-world people. Nozick acknowledges this possibility in a footnote on p. 30, where he allows that it might be legitimate to relax property rights in order to avoid "catastrophic moral horror." If this is taken to include evils such as child labor, malnourishment, illiteracy, homelessness, schizophrenics freezing in the streets, deaths that could be prevented with proper health care, or genocide in foreign lands, then not much is left of Nozick's theory.

Similarly, on p. 231, Nozick concedes that his "entitlement" theory of justice has no application to any society where the existing distribution of assets might reflect historical injustices (such as slavery or legalized gender oppression). He writes: "One cannot use the analysis and theory presented here to condemn any particular scheme of transfer payments, unless it is clear that no considerations of rectification of injustice could apply to justify it." This should have prevented historically-informed libertarians from using the book as an apologia for libertarian policies -- but it didn't.

Perhaps I'm put off by ASU because I'm the parent of a mentally handicapped child. Surely anyone who appreciates the varieties of human vulnerability and understands the need for social safety nets will be appalled by Nozick's cramped vision of government. Nozick himself disavowed libertarianism in later books, and I gather that he made few converts in the world of academic philosophy. But while ASU isn't persuasive, it is thought-provoking and charming, and occupies a secure place in the history of thought. Read it but take it with a grain of salt.

Rating:
Summary: Nozick - 10, Rawls - 0
Review: I am currently reading Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick. This work, in my humble opinion, represents a diamond in the rough in the academic world. Nozick presents a classic defense of freedom's limitless potential, as well as a rights based argument for limited (or no) government.
As a major challenge to Rawls' Theory of Justice, Anarchy, State and Utopia presents a monumental hurdle to the statist majority in American academia. I had been dwelling on this issue and developed a two-part reasoning for why Nozick would cause more of a stir than that which would be caused merely out of disagreement.
First, defending a society free from big government takes one out of a Hobbesean view of human nature. Undoubtedly few educated intellectuals would align themselves with Hobbes "Lord of the Flies" view of unfettered humanity; but within the idea of intellectualism is an air of superiority and intrinsic necessity in the world. If it were not for these great thinkers and brilliant social planners, humankind would remain impulsive, racist and uneducated of our nation's problems. Free society condemns this elitism by saying the individual whether poor or rich, black or white has the ability to seek and find happiness; a happiness that Washington cannot create or work to improve. Dare I allude to the subconscious bourgeoisie mentality that undermines the ideas of democratic socialism. If all paths to progress must occur within the confines of a central planning office, someone must be there, and that person has to believe he/she is enlightened enough to divine sustenance from indulgence, freedom from justice, need from want.
This inevitably leads to the second aspect of why Anarchy, State and Utopia is such a threat to academia and intellectuals: it robs them of the power they have created for themselves. The abstract philosophical, economic and scientific ideas being discussed in esoteric journals and upper level graduate classes today are going to be presented to Congress in a decade or so. This will be part of a call for more regulations, funding of various technologies and frameworks within which to justify more government in our lives. A free society with a limited government requires the intellectual to build his/her movement from the bottom-up, people must see genuine value in an idea, not just ammunition for a sound bite. This would uproot not only the foundation upon which academics have disseminated their ideas for the past century, but their ability to be persuasive via large vocabularies and the badge of a Ph.D. To sincerely move someone requires respect, pragmatism and purpose, which intellectuals and academic sorely lack. Nozick puts them in the back room and keeps them there until they create ideas of moral value and intrinsic necessity.

Rating:
Summary: Rebuttal to Rawls
Review: I disagree with the substantive claims of political philosophy that this book makes, but it would be churlish of me not to give this 5 stars. Giving intellectual credibility to a superior predecessor to libertarianism, Nozick devotes half of this book to defending the minimal state and the other half to presenting him notion of patterned distribution against Rawls contractualism. Sharp and insightful, ASU is also unusually readable for modern political philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: Thoughtful
Review: I have to disagree with the strangely large number of negative reviews of this book. Strangely enough they often start by saying they went to some big shot college which therefore I gather is supposed to make their review more insightful, though this in itself is a basic philosophical fallacy (that of appeal to authority). Nozick's book is well written, highly readable, and very influential as he brings to the fore a major problem: equality may not be reconciled with freedom. Highly recommended!

Rating:
Summary: Important, thought-provoking response to Rawls and others
Review: I simply had to say that this book, though certainly not perfect, is a very interesting (and even entertaining) piece which certainly gives Rawlsian liberals something to chew on. In complete contrast from what an earlier reviewer has said, this book is hardly an embarrasment to Nozick, and while he has altered his positions on some points in the book, his later work is hardly a repudiation of AS&U.

Nor, as this previous reviewer writes, is AS&U only currently of interest to Randian libertarians. This is absolutely preposterous, as Nozick actually went out of his way to dismiss Rand in subsequent work, and the forumlations of his arguments here are not Randian. They are far more Lockean. One might also mention that the book did win a National Book Award, which (to me at any rate), would seem to indicate that it is probably not your everyday Randian screed.

As a junior in college, I took a course in political philosophy at the University of Michigan, which boasts of the nation's top faculties in ethics. The introductory political philosophy course that I took there gave heavy doses of both Rawls and Nozick. People who know what they are talking about consider Nozick's book quite important in debate of contemporary political philosophy. Those who clearly don't know what they are talking about (see the 1-star review below) ... well, they simply slam the guy and the book.

In summary, well worth a read.

Rating:
Summary: A review
Review: I think it rather humorous that the August 13th reviewer has the gumption to ground his authority on AS&U on a college course s/he took as a junior. In the words of the August 9th reviewer, "Ooh, convincing." Take it from someone who has a degree in philosophy from UC Berkeley: the critical assessments by the Aug. 9th reviewer are for the most part accurate, though by no means a complete list of the faults of Nozick. The reason I give the book two stars instead of one is that the Aug. 13th reviewer was right about one thing. AS&U is a very necessary book in the ongoing debates of political philosophy. It shows us what not to believe and why.

Rating:
Summary: READ THIS BOOK!
Review: I've read my share of philosophy... some I enjoyed, some I didn't. I have to say, though, that Nozick definately comes out on top of my favorites list... why? It is absolutely obvious that (1.) he knows what he's doing. Everything he argues makes absolute sense. (2.) He loves what he's doing. Its obvious when someone is too blatantly self-absorbed to consider what he's actually putting forth in a book... not so with Nozick. I find myself going back to AS&U time and time again -- rereading sections and scribbling in the margins each time I encounter a 'new' idea. This is a wonderful work in modern philosophy which I wholeheartedly reccomend to everyone!