Rating: 
Summary: Don't beleive the hype, Nozick is still a Libertarian...
Review: To refute the propoganda that was written about Nozick by reveiwer Roger Albin, that Nozick is no longer a Libertarian, here is a an interview with Nozick in an article that appeared originally on the Liberator Online September 11, 2001: Robert Nozick (1939-2002) is one of the most respected and honored philosophers in the world.
In 1974, Nozick -- then a largely unknown thirty-five-year-old professor of philosophy at Harvard -- published Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The book startled and amazed reviewers, reached a huge audience, and immediately established Nozick's reputation as a major new figure in philosophy -- in fact, as an international intellectual celebrity.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia was a rigorous examination and defense of libertarianism. It was controversial, exciting, and -- most shockingly for a serious philosophical work -- a pleasure to read. And it is hard to overstate the book's importance to libertarianism.
As Laissez Faire Books editor Roy Childs wrote in 1989:
"Nozick's 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia' single-handedly established the legitimacy of libertarianism as a political theory in the world of academia. Indeed, it is not too much to say that without Nozick's book, there might not be a vital and growing academic libertarian movement today, making its way from university to university, from discipline to discipline, from nation to nation."
So it was all the more shocking (and tragic for libertarianism) when, in his 1989 book "The Examined Life," Nozick hinted he had rejected the libertarian philosophy he presented so brilliantly in "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Rumors begin flying that Nozick had abandoned libertarianism. Some even said he had embraced socialism!
In a fascinating and far-ranging new interview with Laissez Faire Books Associate Editor Julian Sanchez, Nozick said he'd been a libertarian all along. An excerpt: Sanchez: "In 'The Examined Life' (1989), you reported that you had come to see the libertarian position that you'd advanced in 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' (1974) as 'seriously inadequate.'
But there are several places in 'Invariances' where you seem to suggest that you consider the view advanced there, broadly speaking, at least, a libertarian one. Would you now, again, self-apply the L-word?" Robert Nozick: "Yes. But I never stopped self-applying it. What I was really saying in 'The Examined Life' was that I was no longer as hardcore a libertarian as I had been before. But the rumors of my deviation (or apostasy!) from libertarianism were much exaggerated. I think this book makes clear the extent to which I still am within the general framework of libertarianism, especially the ethics chapter and its section on the 'Core Principle of Ethics.'" NOTE: Nozick's scholarly work is not casual reading. Yet it is well worth the effort for the serious student of ideas. We never recommend Anarchy, State and Utopia without also passing along Roy Child's wisdom on how to read this marvelous book: "Two final things to remember: This is a book of many parts, and you can usually skip a section without harm, returning to it later. Finally, Nozick sometimes retreats into math and other modes of argument that are beyond me. I always skip this stuff and I've never had a single sleepless night over it."
Rating: 
Summary: The angels dance
Review: Towards the middle of this book, Professor Nozick declares: "Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just." This is, perhaps, the key idea of his book. I doubt that it is true; but since it is so central to Professor Nozick's argument, let us accept it as an axiom and call it Professor Nozick's "inductive axiom" (Professor Nozick neither motivates nor demonstrates it, so it is appropriate to call it an axiom). How can we determine whether property is justly held? One way is to evaluate the distribution of property according to some rule, and see whether some other distribution would produce greater justice, according to that rule (there are many proposed rules). Professor Nozick calls this "distributive justice" (because it depends on the distribution) or "time-slice" justice (because the evaluation is ahistorical, examining the distribution at a single moment in time). Professor Nozick prefers what he calls "entitlement". This is simply the application of his inductive axiom to property: if it was justly acquired by its first holder, and all subsequent transfers have been just, then it is justly held by its present holder. The justice of the present distribution of property is dependent on the original distribution and its subsequent history. One problem with Professor Nozick's approach is that we can't know if the original distribution was just without applying one of the "distributive" or "time-slice" rules he criticizes. We can apply his axiom Thomistically, tracing just steps back as far as we wish, but at some point we must stop and evaluate the situation that exists at that moment. A second problem is that we simply don't know the history. Recorded history goes back only a few thousand years but property existed long before then. Even if we suppose that all was just at creation, we don't know the sequence of steps (or their justice) that took us from there to here. Professor Nozick, I think, would say that the starting place is the "state of nature", and that in this state all was just. Let's call this claim, that we began in a state of nature and justice, Professor Nozick's "state of nature axiom". If we accept this axiom, then the first objection is overthrown. The second remains but I shall later say why I think Professor Nozick would not consider it important. The state of nature Professor Nozick is considering, he says, is that of John Locke. This is the condition in which we lived, presumably, before the creation of the state, when people were answerable only to themselves and to God. But mankind has never lived without intermediate authority. Our unevolved primate cousins live within structures of authority; it is reasonable to suppose that we did as well, even before we became human. Authority evolved alongside us; we have never lived in a state of nature. And even if we had, it would not be a Lockean state. Locke argued that we would, in a state of nature, obey the law of nature, and treat each other with justice. Is this very likely? Far more convincing is Hobbes' argument that a state of nature would be a "war of all against all". Since all would be equal, and equal in right, nobody would have any greater or lesser claim to anything than anyone else. There would be no just way to settle competing claims; we would have to fight. We can see this confirmed in Somalia, for example, when the breakdown of the state led not to cooperation but to civil war. Consider also the urban wastelands, in many different countries, where people join street gangs to gain the protection from the violence that the state no longer prevents. And prison gangs further confirm that human society, in the absence of the state, is dominated by violence. But let's grant Professor Nozick his state of nature axiom, for the sake of argument. Let's suppose that Professor Nozick and I look out upon the world, and Professor Nozick says, "It is just", while I say, "It is not just". Professor Nozick has applied his inductive axiom, starting with his axiomatically just state of nature, and arriving, through an historical series of just steps, at the present condition. I have applied some "time-slice" rule to reach my conclusion, and now I apply his inductive axiom to that result. I have denied the consequent, so I must also deny the antecedant: at least one of the steps, leading from the state of nature to the present condition, must have been unjust by my criteria. So here we have a step, which Professor Nozick calls just and I call unjust. Surprise! Justice is subjective -- we each have our own understanding of "justice". Professor Nozick's whole argument is a fantasy. He starts with a situation that never existed (the state of nature) and modifies it according to his own subjective notion of justice, to produce -- what? A castle in the air? A minimal state, he says, but a minimal state divorced from the world we actually live in. This is why I think he would be unimpressed by my objection that his "historical" method doesn't work because we don't know the history. It's irrelevant what we know or don't know, because his argument is entirely abstract. It's about how many angels can dance on a Harvard pin. The book is badly written and hard to read. It's written in a discursive stream of consciousness, jerking about in all directions at once. I can't help wondering if the numerous parenthetical diversions were intended to distract the reader from the straw dogs and hand-waving. Moreover, Professor Nozick's failure -- nay, refusal -- to define his terms enables him to use them to mean just about anything. I cannot recommend this book, Instead, read "The Dispossessed", by Ursula K. LeGuin, which has an enjoyable plot and interesting characters, and even manages to make the "minimal state" seem attractive!
Rating: 
Summary: What a group of pseudo-experts we all are
Review: Well, take it from someone who has a degree in Philosophy from Harvard and studied with Nozick, Rawls, and a few other worthies of note... the book is neither an embarrassment, nor is it brilliant. It is a necessity if you wish to have a broad understanding of political philosophy. As for all the rest... well, he's Robert Nozick, while the rest of us wankers are writing reviews on Amazon.com as if our opinions really mattered. Enough said.
Rating:
Summary: very overrated.
Review: _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ is considered a libertarian classic, but while it is interesting to read, its value is somewhat marginalized by lack of substance. This is no treatise with consistent methodology -- it's mostly a collection of thought experiments and fanciful ideas. The book is basically comprised of Nozick's hypothetical situations and his timid examinations of them. "Property rights" seem important to Nozick's way of thinking, but he never presents what rights are in any systematic way. The book doesn't "build," it just skirts from one idea to the next without ever reaching satisfying conclusions. Because of this, he faces considerable difficulties and reaches weak conclusions. Why is it so highly regarded? I'm not entirely sure, but I would guess that this book's popularity is due in part to its accessibility and easygoing approach. Yet, its importance has been far too overstated: some people deride scholars for not referring to Nozick's ostensible contributions to libertarian theory, and yet Nozick really contributes nothing to the hard core of libertarian philosophy. One of the most influential chapters in Part I is Nozick's thought experiment on the transformation of a stateless society to a minimal State that violates nobody's rights, but this process is so riddled with confusion and inconsistencies that it fails in practically every respect. The first issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies was based on a symposium for _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ and subjected Nozick's formation of the minimal State to withering criticism. That whole idea can no longer be considered meaningful. Part II of the book is pretty good though - it is polemical and offers some classic refutations of John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" and social contract establishing rights. (Rawls doesn't deserve the amount of attention Nozick gives him, however. The veil only applies to epistemological wraiths who float-around without bodies. By virtue of having bodies and exclusive control over them and being able to argue what is or what is not just, private property rights are established a priori, thus necessitating a comprehensive theory for those rights, not vacuous, arbitrary solutions proposed by Rawls). Far more important are writers like Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, N. Stephen Kinsella, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Anyone looking for a truly definitive, systematic libertarian treatise is encouraged to read Murray Rothbard's _real_ classic, _The Ethics of Liberty_. Is Nozick's book here worth reading? Yes, but keep in mind it's value has been highly overexaggerated.
|
