Nozick Political Philosophy

Simply put Nozick theorized that you are entitled to your holdings, meaning money, property, goods as long as you acquired them justly (without violating anyone elses rights).

The United States of America is a country priding itself on providing equal opportunity for the right of life, liberty, and property. These unalienable rights, according to the Founding Fathers, were not to be taken away or denied by the American government. Also known as a natural right, the right to life can be classified as a citizen’s right to be protected by the government from abuse or death. Property classifies the right that a citizen has for owning materialistic items and land for which can be considered private. Finally, the right of liberty presented in the Constitution for a citizen refers to many different aspects ranging from freedom of speech and expression, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, freedom against search and

Ultimately, Nozick seeks to answer what right governments have to redistribute things that individuals have obtained justly via the three topics aforementioned. This paper will examine Nozick’s conclusion that the minimal state is the most substantial one that can be justified

As citizens, we have a moral responsibility to not only do the right thing for ourselves, but for the others around us. Therefore, if we secede our morals to the state, even though it does not define who

Specifically, Nozick’s theory of justice requires only that people refrain from acting in ways that interfere with others (lockean rights). He argues that we are not obligated to do anything for anyone else nor is anyone required to do anything positive for us. Not only are we forbidden from interfering with a person’s liberty to promote general good, we are prohibited from doing so even if violating an individual’s rights would prevent other individuals’ rights from being violated. Moreover, the theory of justice supports that people are entitled to their

Nozick’s entitlement theory is a theory of justice and how society regulates the distribution of goods, money and property. “All that matters for Noziak is how people came to have what they have, not the pattern or results of the distribution of goods.” (Shaw and Barry, pg.115) His entitlement theory comprises of three main principles which were:

Private interests are things that are best for an individual while public interests are “things that are good for a community as a community” (Stone 2012: 24). The conflict between the two interests introduces the question of how much the government can and should make decisions about citizen’s private liberties and choices. John Stuart Mill believed “government should interfere with individual choice as little as possible” because choices equate to freedom (Stone 2012: 108). Nozick agreed that the “minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified” (Nozick 1974: 149). The role of government should be limited to ensuring the equal rights of its citizens. If government becomes more involved, it may end up obstructing liberty, even if it was trying to protect

Locke’s describes private property as a person’s labor mixed with nature's resources. Seen as an example in a farmer cultivating a plot of land for his own sustenance and the qualification of that farmland as private property through his labor. Given that nature is given to us by God for humans as an equal source of resources, it is then enforced to to distill only one’s need from nature as it is limited to personal equality across religious mandate. This is an important guideline that quantifies measurements to

James Madison once said, “The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.” In the time of the Founders property was a luxury that not every

Nozick responds to philosophical anarchists about the redistribution of rights by first explaining how only the minimal state is justified. A minimal state is one which has limited amounts of power in society. Nozick argues that a minimal state is justified because it would arise inevitably through people living in the “state of nature”. The natural rights of everyone would not be allowed to be broken. Nozick believes everyone has natural rights that can’t be broken.

Philosophers have struggled with determining the proper role of government. In the absence of government and laws, people could do whatever they wanted, and some of them would try to slaughter others and steal their property. This is the state called anarchy. People have realized that the safety of the people and the country would be in jeopardy in such a state. Thus, it is necessary for a country to have a government and/or ruler. However, a ruler must not have absolute power nor lack authority. But the protection of the people and the country alone is not enough for a country to prosper. The property and the natural rights of the people and the government must also be protected. Thus, the proper role of government is to protect the

As part of his book, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick puts forward his theory of the minimal state. He argues that individuals in a state of nature would voluntarily form protective agencies to ensure that their rights are effectively defended. Because of network effects and economies of scale, one of the agencies will eventually achieve a dominant position where it would have the right to suppress the activities of the other agencies. There is the need to suppress these activities because they would subject the clients of the dormant agency to the risk of rights violation. This prohibition will be effective provided the dominant agency compensates the disadvantaged parties by according them with the protection of their rights. After this has occurred there will be a single firm holding

The debate between Rawls and Nozick is one that can still be seen today. The solution to the problem depends on whether a person is a libertarian or a liberal. Though Rawls makes a compelling argument, Nozick’s words cannot be ignored. Rawls argument claims that justice should be fair and this fairness is achieved by strong government restraints. Rawls believes that justice should be able to be achieved by all, not only the privileged. Nozick claims that justice comes from a minimal state, one where people can achieve justice through their natural rights. Justice is redistributive; it is not solely in the hands of one person. There is a clear debate and the obvious choice is Nozick solely based on the fact that Rawls’ theory is an impractical one. In order for Rawls theory to be put into effect there needs to be no self-interest. This is not the case with human nature; society is naturally inclined to protect the self.

For Locke, It becomes increasingly difficult to defend the natural right due to the possibility of the state of war. In order to preserve the right, the people would also have to come together to form a social contract. They would then establish a state, whose job would be to PRESERVE the right, and to punish those who seek to attack it. The state will then decide upon a neutral judge. John Locke argues that the government’s only job is to act as an fair mediator of self-defense. This way the power of the state comes from consent and delegation of the governed. The government is limited by its people’s natural right and cannot overstep its bounds. Since the law of nature states that a person cannot violate another’s natural right, the same mentality must be kept by the government, or sovereign. If the sovereign fails to preserve or

The proclaimed “Father of Liberalism,” John Locke, is an essential figure to study. If not for his sheer amount of philosophical knowledge, then for the profound impact that he has had on the structure of America’s government. In The Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke rejects the status quo and opts for a key principle in government that monarchies simply do not have: a social contract. However, before a social contract is created, people must undergo the state of nature; a place of “perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Chapter 2, Section 4). John Locke skillfully uses the state of nature as a starting point to explain how a reasonable government and civil society are created. The state of nature is the essential beginning that any society must take at first. From this, we see the emergence of natural freedoms; our rights to life, liberty, and property; and how a government may limit those for our own benefit.