Anarchy, State, and Utopia, by Robert Nozick, Political Philosophy (1975)

2014 ◽  
pp. 107-114
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Robert Nozick

Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Schmidtz
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Cooperative Society ◽  
Experience Machine ◽  
Mutual Advantage

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is arguably the twentieth century’s most influential work of political philosophy after Rawls’s Theory of Justice. It substantially responds to Rawls, despite ranging over many topics. The Experience Machine, discussed in Part I, engagingly articulates Nozick’s discomfort with utilitarianism, and with Rawls’s way of modeling separate personhood. That is, Rawls depicts bargainers as separate consumers, entitled to separate shares, while dismissing the separateness of what they do as arbitrary. Part II continues to pound on the incongruousness of respecting our separateness as consumers (see his discussions of distributing grades and mates) while implicitly denigrating and even denying our separateness as producers. Part III argues that true utopia would not impose a favored vision of utopia while silencing incompatible rivals. It would instead be a cooperative society for mutual advantage, premised on everyone coming to the table with a robust right to say no to unattractive offers.

Self-Ownership, World Ownership, and Equality: Part II

1986 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. A. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
The Self ◽  
The Political ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Rightful Owner ◽  
Redistributive Taxation

1. The present paper is a continuation of my “Self-Ownership, World Ownership, and Equality,” which began with a description of the political philosophy of Robert Nozick. I contended in that essay that the foundational claim of Nozick's philosophy is the thesis of self-ownership, which says that each person is the morally rightful owner of his own person and powers, and, consequently, that each is free (morally speaking) to use those powers as he wishes, provided that he does not deploy them aggressively against others. To be sure, he may not harm others, and he may, if necessary, be forced not to harm them, but he should never be forced to help them, as people are in fact forced to help others, according to Nozick, by redistributive taxation. (Nozick recognizes that an unhelping person may qualify as unpleasant or even, under certain conditions, as immoral. The self-ownership thesis says that people should be free to live their lives as they choose, but it does not say that how they choose to live them is beyond criticism.)

Contemporary Political Philosophy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Kymlicka
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Ronald Dworkin ◽  
Liberal Egalitarianism ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Many ◽  
Michael Sandel

Contemporary Political Philosophy has been revised to include many of the most significant developments in Anglo-American political philosophy in the last eleven years, particularly the new debates on political liberalism, deliberative democracy, civic republicanism, nationalism, and cultural pluralism. The text now includes two new chapters on citizenship theory and multiculturalism, in addition to updated chapters on utilitarianism, liberal egalitarianism, libertarianism, socialism, communitarianism, and feminism. The many thinkers discussed include G. A. Cohen, Ronald Dworkin, William Galston, Carol Gilligan, R. M. Hare, Catherine Mackinnon, David Miller, Philippe Van Parijs, Susan Okin, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, John Roemer, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, and Iris Young.

In What Sense must Socialism be Communitarian?

1989 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Miller
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Social Relationships ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Ronald Dworkin ◽  
The Social ◽  
Contemporary Liberalism ◽  
Liberal Thought

This paper stands at the confluence of two streams in contemporary political thought. One stream is composed of those critics of liberal political philosophy who are often described collectively as ‘communitarians’. What unites these critics (we shall later want to investigate how deep their collegiality goes) is a belief that contemporary liberalism rests on an impoverished and inadequate view of the human subject. Liberal political thought – as manifested, for instance, in the writings of John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and Ronald Dworkin – claims centrally to do justice to individuality: to specify the conditions under which distinct individuals, each with his own view about how life should be lived, can pursue these visions to the best of their ability. But, the critics claim, liberalism is blind to the social origins of individuality itself. A person comes by his identity through participating in social practices and through his affiliation to collectivities like family and nation. An adequate political philosophy must attend to the conditions under which people can develop the capacity for autonomy that liberals value. This, however, means abandoning familiar preoccupations of liberal thought – especially the centrality it gives to individual rights – and looking instead at how social relationships of the desired kind can be created and preserved. It means, in short, looking at communities – their nature and preconditions.

NATURAL RIGHTS AND IMPERIAL CONSTITUTIONALISM: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMERICAN AMALGAM

2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Zuckert
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Culture ◽  
American Revolution ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Political Thinking ◽  
American Political Culture ◽  
Background Theory

Robert Nozick worked in a Lockean tradition of political philosophy, a tradition with deep resonance in the American political culture. This paper attempts to explore the formative moments of that culture and at the same time to clarify the role of Lockean philosophy in the American Revolution. One of the currently dominant approaches to the revolution emphasizes the colonists' commitments to their rights, but identifies the relevant rights as “the rights of Englishmen,” not natural rights in the Lockean mode. This approach misses, however, the way the Americans construed their positive or constitutional rights in the light of a Lockean background theory. In a word, the Americans recreated an amalgam of traditional constitutional principles and Lockean philosophy, an amalgam that nearly guaranteed that they and the British would speak past each other. The ambiguities and uncertainties of the British constitution as extended to the colonies provided an incentive to the Americans (but not the British) to look to Locke as a guide to their rights, thereby helping win a place for Lockean theory in American political thinking.

scholarly journals If You’re A Libertarian, How Come You’re So Rich?

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin MacLeod
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Satisfactory Solution ◽  
Entitlement Theory ◽  
Il Y A ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Political Principles ◽  
Article Analyse

This article examines the bearing of political philosophy on one’s personal behaviour. I review the ‘rich egalitarian problem’ posed by G.A. Cohen and consider a variant of this problem called the ‘rich socialist problem’. I argue that once we adopt a nuanced view of what adequate fidelity to one’s political principles requires there is a satisfactory solution to the rich socialist problem. Finally, focusing on Robert Nozick’s highly influential historical entitlement theory, I explain the ‘rich libertarian problem’ and explain why, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, it is more intractable than the rich socialist problem. Cet article analyse l’importance de la philosophie politique pour le comportement personnel. Je passe en revue ‘le problème de l’égalitarien riche’ posé par G.A. Cohen et considère un problème analogue ‘le problème du socialiste riche’. Je maintiens que dès que nous adoptons un point de vue nuancé sur ce que requiert la fidélité à des principes politiques, il y a une solution satisfaisante au problème du socialiste riche. Enfin, me tournant vers la théorie très influente de Robert Nozick sur l’habilitation (‘entitlement’) historique, je pose ‘le problème du libertarien riche’ et j’explique pourquoi, étonnamment, c’est un problème plus difficile à résoudre que celui du socialiste riche.

Contemporary Anglo-American Political Philosophy

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Klosko
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Death Certificate ◽  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Anglo American

According to a now familiar narrative, in the middle of the twentieth century, political philosophy was “dead,” but it has since been resurrected in a new form. Credit for the death certificate is given to Peter Laslett, who bemoaned the absence of major philosophers writing in English, like the tradition of thinkers from Thomas Hobbes to Bernard Bosanquet. According to many theorists, responsibility for the revival of political philosophy belongs to John Rawls. One of Rawls's most important contributions is the method of “reflective equilibrium.” In A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls attempts to reconcile freedom and equality in a principled way, offering an account of “justice as fairness.” Three years after publication of Theory, Rawls's Harvard colleague Robert Nozick published Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), which is, after Theory, probably the most celebrated and widely discussed work in political philosophy in recent decades. This article explores contemporary Anglo-American political philosophy, the evolution of Rawls's thought, communitarianism, feminism and liberalism, multiculturalism, and global justice.

The tables turned: Wilt Chamberlain versus Robert Nozick on rectification

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam James Tebble
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Mediterranean Basin ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Past Wrongs ◽  
Past Injustices ◽  
Land Restitution ◽  
The Mediterranean Basin

Recently the demand for rectification of past injustices has become an increasingly important issue. Each of the last three decades has witnessed democratization processes in the Mediterranean basin, Latin America, in Central and Eastern Europe and in Africa where debates have arisen over rectification of past wrongs which naturally include the unjust expropriation of property. Most recently, moreover, the idea of land restitution to indigenous people, particularly in Australia, Canada and Zimbabwe, has become a prominent, if not always equanimous, part of those countries' domestic political agendas. The difficulties associated with satisfying such demands have been discussed with particular regard to the framing of new post-Communist constitutions in eastern and central Europe by, among others, Jon Elster and Claus Offe. Yet, not only in the field of public policy has the issue of rectification become important. Perhaps because of these developments, there has been a resurgence of interest in rectification in political philosophy as is shown by a forthcoming collection of essays on the subject edited by Elster.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document