Robert Nozick - Revision

The BIG Thinkers
Leaving Certificate Politics and Society
Nozick, Robert
Key Concepts: Role of the State, Rights of the Individual
Specific Arguments: Minimal Role of State, Libertarianism
Influential Work: Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)
1
Nozick in Context
Robert Nozick is widely regarded as one of the most influential political
philosophers of the twentieth century.
NOZICK First and foremost, Nozick was a libertarian – a proponent of the belief
(1938 to 2002) that the less a government intervened in the lives of its citizens, the
better. Second, he fervently opposed welfare state policies, believing
them to be on par with theft. Finally, Nozick took a rights based
approach to political philosophy and he evoked (and cited) John Locke
as a significant influence.
John Rawls and Justice

The academic antagonism that existed between his work and that of his
fellow Harvard professor, John Rawls, is central to understanding his
argument.
Nozick’s most notable work Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974 emerged
to directly challenge the assertions made by his colleague John Rawls in
A Theory of Justice (1971).
In the above, Rawls outlined his belief that justice is founded upon two
principles. He advocated the importance of fairness in distributing
amenities and opportunities. He put forward the idea of social and natural lotteries. The social lottery, he
believed, was the lottery of birth: the circumstances one is born into varies greatly across the world. Thus,
some people benefit from social privilege while others suffer disadvantage. This, he believes is unfair and
must be addressed. The natural lottery, Rawls argues, is quite similar, and concerns issues such as physicality
and intelligence, favourable aspects in the human condition which are, again, randomly allocated to people
at birth.
Rawls sought to overcome these injustices through the two principles of justice:
The First Principle of Justice

‘Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty
compatible with a similar liberty for others’.
The Second Principle of Justice

1) Social and economic inequalities are to be addressed in a manner
that benefits the least well off.
2) Society should provide fair and equal opportunity for all and social
and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are of
greatest benefit to the least advantaged. Here, Rawls introduces
the difference principle: a belief that inequality is only permitted
when it addresses and favours the needs of the least well off. So
he argued for the redistribution of wealth where it benefitted the
least well off.
2
Nozick and the minimal state
Like Locke, Nozick asserts that the individual has certain inalienable
rights, namely liberty, life, justice, and property. However, as these
cannot be protected by anarchy or a state of nature, Nozick
acknowledged the need for a state but he was very keen to curtail its
role.
Starting from Locke’s state of nature, Nozick argues that it is inevitable

for individuals to try to improve their lot, and when this occurs, they ‘Our main
invariably arrive at the point of a minimal state. He calls this the
‘invisible hand’ principle. This minimal state, Nozick argues has conclusions about the
legitimate grounds for providing only the most basic of amenities: state are that a
namely law and order, and their ancillaries of police, army, judiciary,
etc. These are necessary for the protection of an individual’s life, well- minimal state, limited,
being, and property. to the narrow
In the minimal state, these are the only services for which an individual functions of protection
can be taxed, as they are a necessity to maintain order. Nozick did not against force, theft,
believe it was legitimate to demand taxes for other purposes.
Furthermore the state should not concern itself with redistributing fraud, enforcement of
wealth or interfere with the individual’s right to own property/wealth.
Within this state, the individual is free to practice free exchange of
contracts, and so on, is
goods and services without the interference of the state so long as justified, but any more
these properties have been justifiably and legitimately attained.
extensive state will
Thus, for Nozick, the minimal state is the only justification of a state. violate persons' rights
not to be forced to do
Nozick and the rights of the individual
certain things, and is
Imperative to Nozick’s interpretation of the right of the individual is unjustified; and that
property. Rights based reasoning was central to his arguments with
regard to the individual. It is argued that his reasoning comes from an the minimal state is
individualist rights tradition, and this is quite clear when considering inspiring as well as
Nozick’s hostility toward taxation, wealth distribution, and the welfare
state. Wealth belongs to individuals in Nozick’s view. If the state taxes right’.
earnings in order to redistribute them, this is really in engaging in a kind
of ‘forced labour’, because individuals are forced to spend some of their Robert Nozick
time working to pay the government.
Opposing Rawls’ two principles of justice (most emphatically the latter),

Nozick argues that talk about ‘distributive justice’ is inherently
misleading, because it seems to imply that there is some central
authority who distributes to individuals shares of wealth and income
that pre-exist the distribution, as if they had appeared like ‘manna from
heaven’.
He roundly criticises anything relating to Marxism or wealth

redistribution and regards such practices as a ‘lack of understanding’ of
economics.
3
Utopia
Nozick argues that a minimal state constitutes a kind of utopia. For,

among all models of political order, it alone makes possible the attempt
to realize every person's and group’s vision of the good society. If some
individuals or groups want to live according to socialist or egalitarian
principles, they are free to do so as far as Nozick is concerned; indeed,
they may even establish a community, of whatever size, within the
boundaries of the minimal state, and require that everyone who comes
to live within it must agree to have a portion of his wealth
redistributed. All they are forbidden from doing is forcing people to join
or contribute to the establishment of such a community who do not
want to do so.
The minimal state thus provides an overarching system within which

any number of social, moral, and religious utopian visions may be
realized. It thereby provides a way for people even of radically opposed ‘Utopia is a
points of view - socialists and capitalists, liberals and conservatives, framework for utopias,
atheists and religious believers, whether Jews, Christians, Muslims, a place where people
Buddhists, Hindus - to develop different ways of living in communities,
while living side by side in peace.
are at liberty to join
together voluntarily to
pursue and attempt to
In summary realize their own
vision of the good life
 Nozick’s work arose as a challenge to the work of John Rawls in the ideal community
 Rawls believed it was just to redistribute wealth in the interests
of those who were the least well off. He justified this under his but where no one
‘two principles of justice’ can impose his own
 Nozick disagreed and believed that only a minimal state was utopian vision upon

justified
The role of the minimal state was to protect the natural rights of
others’.
the individual (including property)
 Nozick was critical of taxation, wealth redistribution and welfare Robert Nozick
as he believed these impinged on the rights of the individual
Material Consulted
Heywood, A. (2007) Political Ideologies: An Introduction. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Wolff, J. (1991) Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State.
Oxford: OUP
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/nozick

Robert Nozick - Revision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robert Nozick - Revision

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robert Nozick - Revision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The BIG Thinkers

Leaving Certificate Politics and Society

Influential Work: Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)

John Rawls and Justice

The First Principle of Justice

The Second Principle of Justice

Starting from Locke’s state of nature, Nozick argues that it is inevitable

Opposing Rawls’ two principles of justice (most emphatically the latter),

He roundly criticises anything relating to Marxism or wealth

Nozick argues that a minimal state constitutes a kind of utopia. For,

The minimal state thus provides an overarching system within which

You might also like