Anarchy, State and Utopia | 
 enlarge | Author: Robert Nozick
Publisher: Basic Books
Category: Book
Buy New: £17.61
New (16) Used (14) from £10.09
Rating:  15 reviews
Sales Rank: 323515
Media: Paperback
Pages: 267
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 9.2 x 6 x 1.1
ISBN: 0465097200
Dewey Decimal Number: 320
EAN: 9780465097203
ASIN: 0465097200
Publication Date: October 21, 1977
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand New. Shipped from UK Mainland. Delivery is usually 4 - 5 working days from order by Royal Mail, International Delivery is by Airmail.
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 10 more reviews...
 A very nasty piece of work. November 3, 2008
Ellen S (London, England)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Nozick is the considered the originator of the oxymoronic and totally imaginary 'anarcho capitalist' movement. In practice this is just about the least human, humane and rational school of thought to come out of Enlightenment liberalism. Entirely unworkable and entirely contradictory, the idea that you can have a stateless society yet run things by the market is far more ridiculous than the ideas of actual anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin.
Even if all people were born completely equal with exactly the same skills and resources available, as long as the uneven distribution of the market existed then in one generation an elite would form and oppress those who hadn't made it. This is the nature of the market, some win because others lose. Nozick's version, where there is absolutely NO limit whatsoever on what the winners can do with their money and NO safety net at all for the losers, is particularly callous. The rich would obviously seek to protect themselves by hiring a police force and by establishing a legal system (both of which they would own, so would do their bidding) - how this is any different from a state Nozick never tells us. On top of this there is nothing you cannot do, as long as it involves money - so keeping slaves, selling rape porn, buying torture devices - it's all good, supply and demand man! The individual would never be held accountable to the community or any form of democracy - that, we are told, is oppressive. Instead they'd be judged by whoever had the most cash and therefore the most power. That we are told, would be total liberty!
The fact is Nozick and the minarchists (all 5 of them) have no intention of actually eliminating the state for any legitimate reasons - such as the way it protects inequality and holds all sovereign power over the individual. What this work and its followers are really about is making a fake 'radical' case for lower taxes and greater market freedom. You might as well read the Republican Party manifesto. It would be more honest.
If you are interested in anarchism proper, look elsewhere.
 Vive l'anarchie, l'etat et l'Ethiopia! July 19, 2008
Pieter (Johannesburg)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Nozick's incisive arguments for individual freedom derive from moral conviction rather than economic theory. Life affirming to the core, they are framed in a delightful style leavened with wit. The spark animating his analyses consistently inspires whilst the skill and precision of his definitions, distinctions and diction impress throughout.
To Nozick, the individual is sacred, self-owning and inviolable. Individuals are ends in themselves, not the means for other individuals to attain ends. This conviction is the source of the right to life, liberty and property. Part One investigates justifications for the existence of the state as an agent of monopoly power.
He defends the minimal or "night watchman" state by identifying the procedural matters involved in the use of force. Force may be applied in reaction to crime, in order to protect rights and for settling disputes. The state is thus restricted to (a) defending society from foreign coercion (b) deterring & punishing force & fraud and (c) ensuring the honoring of contracts.
Nozick then proceeds to criticize forms of government of which the power exceeds the minimal as harmful entities undermining the sovereignty of the individual.
Here he defines the entitlement theory of justice which comprises justice in (a) acquisition (& in (a1) rectification should it be violated), (b) holding and (c) transfer. Briefly this means property is justified if it derives from procedures like voluntary transfer or acquisition that is just. This is a non-patterned principle and justice is a process rather than a condition. "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen," he explains.
Although agreeing with Hayek on all points, Nozick's style & reasoning differ markedly, his analytical method being far removed from the approach of the author of The Road to Serfdom.
Neither conservative nor anarchist, Nozick was a classical liberal or libertarian. He rejects the distinction between economic rights and civil liberties, and between the market and the civil spheres, referring to "capitalist acts between consenting adults." And in confronting the far-out fringe represented by Murray Rothbard, he explains convincingly why Anarcho-capitalism is unstable and incompatible with reality.
Back on the statist front, Nozick elegantly dismantles the case for egalitarianism in his engagement with John Rawls, trenchantly exposing the fallacies & injustice of redistribution, regulation of commerce and welfarism.
His objection to "positive rights" like equality of opportunity is based on their requirement of a substructure of materials & actions that may belong to others. On this subject Chantal Delsol's criticism of the European welfare state came to mind. Observing how welfare keeps citizens suspended in perpetual adolescence that leads to the conflation of rights and desires, she defines this process of inhibited growth resulting in selfish demands as the "sacralization" of rights.
Inversion takes place: What began as freedoms are transformed into entitlements whilst the process reduces those who are responsible & productive into the slaves of the petulant takers, illustrating Nozick's characterization of collectivist exploitation as a process in which people's ignorance of economics are taken advantage of.
Having demonstrated the irrationality and injustice of attempts to enforce equality, Nozick lovingly reinstates individual freedom as the primary principle. His cutting analyses are enhanced by entertaining and thought-provoking observations on alienation, equal opportunities, exploitation, love, the psychology of envy, emotions and moods.
Finally, he explores the meaning of utopia.
A free society serves as framework for utopia, offering a meta-utopia that permits voluntary movement between dimensions where everybody benefits from the presence of everybody else. The gist of it is voluntary association for mutual benefit.
The innumerable attempts to "refute" Nozick bear witness to the abiding light so eloquently revealed in this masterpiece of political philosophy. A further measure of its success is the demonstrable impact of Anarchy, State & Utopia on various other disciplines.
Nozick's refreshing insights, analytical excellence and elucidatory skills created an intoxicating text. But it is the joy in the ever expanding mentation, the radiating love of life that resonates with this reader.
Disappointingly little knowledge of philosophy for a philosophy prof. July 29, 2007
Too many books
0 out of 3 found this review helpful
Nozick starts from the assumption that the one basic human right in the "state of nature" is the right to hold property, absolutely, without regard to anyone else. From this he concludes that it is wrong for the state demand taxes to pay welfare, and that slavery is fine so long as it is done with the slave's initial consent.
He purports to base this on a misquote of Kant: "treat others as an end not solely as a means". Kant actually said "treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of another not solely as a means but also as an end". From this Kant deduced the opposite: that it was obligatory to pay charity, and that slavery was in all cases abhorrent. Nozick doesn't actually mention any of Kant's arguments, which is odd, as he claims to be a Kantian.
Nozick also avoids any discussion of property rights, such as Hohfeld's technical legal theories, or Proudhon's anarchist discussion of property. Again, although he cites a single quote of Proudhon's from a secondary source, he never mentions the theories of the state, property or human rights of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, nor any leading anarchist thinker. This is odd as half his book is supposed to be a discussion of anarchism.
Nozick does quote, in detail and in some length, Mises and Hayek, so he is familiar with the work of at least two political philosophers. All in all, a disappointingly uninformed book for someone of his position. If you know where the cream is, and lick it shamelessly, you can go a long way.
All that said, this is an influential book, and was very popular when it came out, leaving a lasting mark on subsequent conservative and libertarian thinkers. If you are, for example, keen on Ayn Rand, and are finding that academics are turning their nose up at you, try hitting them instead with Nozick. Probably undeservedly, he has a higher reputation amongst most in academe.
 A very good argument, but now painfully out of date February 1, 2007
Edward Aveyard (Ossett, West Yorkshire, U.K.)
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
Having read Rawls as part of my degree, we were also given parts of Nozick to compare it with. On reading the book, it seemed to be a more impressive argument when you see how all of his different ideas link together. He does make a forceful critique of Marxism in particular, and notes how Marxist ideas of "expoitation" could render parts of the welfare state as exploitative. There are three big problems though.
First, this was written back in the days when political debates were Left v Right. It makes no mention at all of environmentalism, and the only time that it mentions animal rights is as an example of an absurdity [Nozick actually believes that eating meat is immoral, but he uses this as an example of how utilitarianism cannot be used as a grounds for the state]. Nozick works on the old premise that, if everyone works hard enough, everyone can get what they want. In this day and age, any such argument must at least respond to the environmentalist argument that this would make life on Earth unsustainable - and I can't see how anyone can convincingly argue that.
Secondly, the book is too American. He talks about universal rights, which belong to every human being, yet writes as if Americans are the only human beings of interest. What about those in other countries who have these rights yet may have greater difficulty in setting up his sort of state [e.g. greater corruption, poorer infrastructure]. If taxation is the theft that Nozick makes it out as, is it unjust that people in Iceland may have to pay greater taxes to protect their natural rights than people in Singapore do [due to admin costs]? The final section of the book, which deals with the idea of a variety of city states with their own rules for residents, seems completely alien to any resident of Europe; it is clearly connected to the old American ideal, where state rights allowed different religious communities to settle in different areas and live by different laws. It seems quite inapplicable to anywhere in Europe.
This links in with the third problem. There is hardly any historical dimension to this book. There is no factual analysis of what unrestrained capitalism did before - of those "dark satanic mills" in parts of 18th century England, where 5 year-old boys worked 13 hour days. There is little consideration of the fact that the current property distribution cannot be said to be "just" by the terms that he lays out, which renders protection of the existing order as unjust. To be fair to Nozick, he does say that his libertarian state is just a "thought experiment". The trouble is that, considering its poor representation of the real world, it is not a very useful experiment.
To conclude, the book is worth reading mainly to get criticisms of Rawls, Marx and some other old-fashioned leftists. It is not really useful to those who want to debate with more modern radicals, and is not meant for those looking for practical solutions to contemporary problems. A classic of philosophy, perhaps - but not a modern political manifesto.
Outstanding February 3, 2006
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
Nozick is original, accessible, fascinating and above all persuasive. The gaps he leaves, like a justification for natural rights are the only parts of the book that dissapoint. This is particularly the case because he moved onto other topics so fast in his lifetime he never really formally addressed these central issues. Otherwise an absolutely outstanding piece of literature and political philosophy.
|
|
|
|
