THE
PUSHPIN PUNDIT
Nozick’s Libertarian Snare: Assume Property is Inviolable for 140 pages
(posted June 3, 2006;
revised July 8, 2006)
Opponents
of libertarianism typically see Robert Nozick as a clever magician. Through slight-of-hand tricks, Nozick makes
libertarianism seem more appealing than it is.
An alternative view is that libertarianism really is appealing, and that Nozick succeeds in conveying its
appeal. But of course that can’t be
right. Nozick is a clever magician, and
in this post I try to illuminate one of his tricks. (I am referring here to the Nozick of Anarchy, State, and Utopia (ASU); as noted in a previous post, Nozick subsequently
took a zig-zag path, repudiating libertarianism in The Examined Life, only to move back toward it in his last book, Invariances.)
In
Part I of ASU, which takes up around
140 pages, Nozick considers whether a libertarian
“minimal” state would arise from a state of nature, assuming general adherence to stringent libertarian property rights. Nozick argues that a minimal state would in
fact arise (more precisely, he argues that an "ultraminimal state"
would arise, and that those in charge of the ultraminimal state would have a
moral obligation to transform it into a minimal state.) Nozick concludes that a minimal state is
morally permissible, contrary to the view of anarchists who see all states as
illegitimate.
Now
in order to follow and evaluate Nozick’s argument in Part I of ASU, the reader must assume, with
Nozick, the existence of stringent libertarian property rights; the reader must
assume that redistribution of income from rich to poor is a violation of the
moral rights of the rich. What’s more,
when supporters of the welfare state
read Part I of ASU, they likely find
themselves resisting Nozick’s argument for the minimal state, simply because it is an argument that comes from
Nozick. In order to reject the argument
that Nozick makes in Part I, supporters of the welfare state likely find
themselves not just accepting libertarian property rights, but straining to
defend those sacred libertarian property rights from encroachment by the
minimal state!
Then,
when after 140 pages Nozick finally addresses the real issue – should there be
a welfare state? – the supporters of the welfare state
have already granted him almost the entire argument. Having assumed the truth of libertarianism
for 140 pages, and having attempted to see the right to property as stronger
even than Nozick would allow, the befuddled supporters of the welfare state are
hard pressed to deny that the welfare state violates the moral rights of
property owners. Neat
trick, Nozick.
As
may be evident to regular readers of this blog (hey guys, did we find a fourth
for bridge?), I am thinking about writing a book with the subtitle Utilitarianism against Libertarianism,
to provide some company for my book Distributive
Justice and Disability: Utilitarianism against Egalitarianism. So I would like to ask: If anyone has seen the argument of this post
elsewhere, please let me know.
Permanent link to this post: www.pushpinpundit.com/v1n11060306.htm