Anarchy, State, and Utopia

These notes are old and were written while reading — they don’t necessarily reflect my current views.

Nozick starts of with making a point that a minimal state is ethically permissible. He does that by going through a state in complete anarchy in theory and shows that through market processes (which he even calls the invisible hand) institutions close to a state will naturally occur, as it is in the interest of the people living in anarchy to form organisations that protect them. These organisations naturally winner take all (at least in geographical area), as otherwise the there would be constant war (which then in itself would establish a winner).

Therefore, as the minimal state is inevitable and arises through the acting of every participant in their self interest, this is morally permissible.

With the Wilt Chamberlain example he argues, that there is nor real point in legislating a desired distribution in society, because mutually beneficial transaction of individuals would constantly undermine it. This would make it necessary to prohibit transaction or reallocate constantly basically rendering transactions useless.

Taxation is slavery in the sense that you are taking from someone without their consent. Taking material goods is the same as taking work/ time of that person. Therefore, it is hard to define slavery without including taxation.

Nozick critiques Rawls’ concept by pointing out that it creates an inherent asymmetry. The less endowed want to only cooperate with the better endowed, if they receive a share by which more they would gain less (because of changing incentives for the better endowed). This claim can vice versa be made for the better endowed who only want to cooperate with the less endowed if receiving more would result in less. Why then introduce the asymmetry in favour of the less endowed, instead of letting them bargain it out in mutually beneficial transactions.

Deriving the more than minimal state in chapter 13. He starts at the minimal state and supposes a society where rights can be traded, he then imagines that the people in the society will trade each other’s rights until everyone possesses an equal share of every one. In this situation the question arises whether it would be permissible for children of members of this state to choose to not participate. Rejecting this can hardly be argued whilst having regard for their personal rights. Furthermore, it can’t be argued that children are property of their parents. Therefore, erecting a state with e.g. compulsory tax is not permissible without infringing on peoples rights.

He gives the example that just because someone’s action is of interest in a society, there is no right of the others involved to decide for that person. E.g. suppose 5 men a interested in one woman. It is rather obvious that the 6 people involved should not just take a vote who she is going to decide on (if anyone).

Furthermore, he makes an interesting point that the middle class is always preferably treated in redistribution schemes. This is what one ought to expect, as potentially the top 51% in a democratic society could join together to exploit the others. The same would be possible for the bottom 51%. Therefore the votes in the middle are of the highest importance in determining who rips of who. Mostly the richer part of society will have more means to incentivize the middle class to vote with them.

Additionally, he makes the point that limiting the power of government lowers the incentive of power hungry people to pursue the career and for vested interest groups to influence politics. If there is no sword, it can’t be misused.

Lastly he describes how a process to reach utopia might look like. He imagines a system where everyone can create his idea of a system and people can choose to join the system that suits them best. Therefore, a system will form where everyone is contributing to society more than they take, as otherwise they would not be accepted. → It’s a market mechanism.

In a competitive market everyone would receive their marginal contribution.