A Critique of Robert Nozick’s Political Philosophy
Chapter One
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The objective of this work is to look at moral rights and side constraints, state of nature rights, foundation of rights, the attenuation of rights, the minimal state versus individualist anarchy, the minimal state, the challenge of individual anarchism, response to the anarchist challenges, justice holdings, the historical entitlement doctrine about justice in holding, the critique of end state and patterned principle, Nozick’s Lockean Proviso, the rectification of historical is justice and utopia.
CHAPTER TWO
NOZICK ON MORAL RIGHT
Anarchy, State and Utopia begins with the assertion that “individual have rights and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)” (2).
STATE OF NATURE RIGHT
The moral rights that people have is what is known as state of nature right, this is because those rights are not granted by government, nor by contract but given to an individual by nature. According to Suntash (10) is of the opinion that Nozick sometime referred to these as “Lockean rights”. Nozick assumes that everyone posses the natural rights to life, liberty and property including the right to claim as property the fruits or products of one’s labour and the right to dispose of one’s property as one see fit (provided that in doing so do not violate the rights of anyone’s else. Therefore since this rights are not given by government or by contract if there is any foundation, such foundation must be based on moral imperative which will be our next discussion.
THE FOUNDATION OF RIGHT
It is important to note that Nozick moral right is traceable to John Locke and Immanuel Kant. Kant A German philosopher made a significant contribution to ethical theory. He aimed at discovering a general moral principle which would be absolutely universal in application and completely free from the accidental particularities of time, place or human nature. He summarized his view in his categorical imperative which distinct from a hypothetical imperative, thus hypothetical imperative is a conditional imperative, which commands one to do things as a means to an end. The moral law for him is a categorical imperative it applies to all men as rational beings possessing free will. According to Barry (40), the categorical imperative implores us to perform an action without regards to the consequences or effects. It is a command without qualification. This imperative according to Kant is “act only on the maxim whereby they canst at the same time will that is should become a universal law”. It is from this line that Nozick find the nature of individual right. According to Nozick, since individual are free agents and also have the capacity to choice, he/she should not be used as a means to an end, in Anarchy, state and utopia, Nozick is against government redistribution of resources since such could amount on infringes on the right of the citizen. Nozick is also of the opinion that this right has side constraint.
RIGHTS AS SIDE-CONSTRAINTS
The individual rights that people have possess side constraints, For Cohen (16) this could be understood as the limit to what should be done to individual, this mean that the right of individual cannot traded even if it mean gain for the whole society. The question arises why is individual right to self and property cannot be violated? For Nozick this is because individual need space to make life meaningful. Nozick thus cites the example why slavery is wrong. According to him it is not because slave owner maltreated them, but because it goes against individuals will to be use in certain way. Thus after his articulation of right, Nozick want on to see whether any state could arise without the violation of these natural right which will be our next point of discussion.
CHAPTER THREE
NOZICK’S MINIMAL STATE
Minimal State according to Fried (20), is the central concern of part of Nozick’s book justifies the minimal state.
He summarized his results this way
“Our main conclusion about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrows functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on is justified; that any more extensive state will violate person rights not to do certain things, and is unjustified, and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive operations for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection” Nozick (3).
According to Fried (21); Nozick appeal to a state of nature which is Lockean in nature. Locke believes that civil society or the state is a product of the voluntary agreement entered freely by the people to overcome the problems in the state of nature that he attributes to certain forms of irrational behavior in the lives of some men and the need to punish transgressors. Secondly, Locke maintains that the political institution created must not exercise power beyond what is necessary for the protection of natural right, such as the right to life, liberty and property, Nozick contends that Locke’s social contract is inadequate. On this basis, he espouse his own view. He is of the opinion that the deficiency in the state of nature as espouse Locke could be handled not by formally instituting a government.
CHAPTER FOUR
CRITIQUE OF ROBERT NOZICK’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Having taken a critical look at Robert Nozick’s political philosophy, it is safe to say that Nozick make a remarkable achievement, especially in his defense of libertarianism which is a political philosophy holding that the role of the state in society ought to be severely limited, confined essentially to police protection, national defense, and the administration of courts of law, with all other tasks commonly performed by modern governments – education, social insurance, welfare etc. Taken over by religious bodies, charities, and other private institutions operating in a free market, in Nozick’s view whatever its practical benefits, the strongest reason to advocate a libertarian society is simply that such advocacy follows from a serious respect for individual rights.
Nozick’s is also commended on this view that individual has rights. Nozick takes his position to follow from a basic moral principle associated with Immanuel Kant and enshrined in Kant’s Second Formulation of his famous categorical imperative. “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only”. The idea here is that a human being, as a rational agent endowed with self-awareness, free will, and the possibility of formulating a plan of life, has an inherent dignity and cannot properly be treated as a mere thing, or used against his will as an instrument or resource in the way an inanimate object might be.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) contained Nozick political view which seeks to justifies minimal state, as well the discussion of the issue of distributive justice. Nozick adopts and defends what he calls “the entitlement theory”. Nozick appealed to the Kantian idea that people should be treated as ends (what he termed “separateness of persons”), John Rawls’s arguments in a theory of justice that conclude that just inequalities in distribution must benefit the idea least well off. The paper after critically assessing Robert Nozick’s political philosophy is of the view that at times it is not only necessary about desirable to redistribute wealth and resources so as to help those in need. Moreso, possession of wealth by individuals might be a product of chance rather than talent and ability.
WORKS CITED
- Althan, J. E.’’ Review of Anarchy, State and Utopia’’ Philosophy. No. 199, Vol. 52. (1977).
- Bakaya, Santash. The Political Theory of Robert Nozick. Delhi: Gyan Books, 2006.
- Barray, B.’’ Review of Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozicks Political Theory. No. 3. Vol. 2. (1975).
- Bring house, Justice. Cambridge, UK: polity press, (2004)
- Cohen, G.A Self- Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. Cambridge University Press, (1995).
- Esikot, I. Socio-Political Philosophy. The Basics and the Issues. Uyo: Robert Minder International Limited, 2010.
- Exdell, Distributive Justice: Nozick on Property Rights. Ethics, No. 2. Vol. 87. (1977).
- Feser, E. Taxation, Forced Labour, and Their. The Independent Reviews. No. 2. Vol. 2. (2000).
- Fried, B. Wilt Chamberlain Revisited: Nozick’s Justice in Transfer’ and the Problem of Market – Based Distribution. Philosophy and public attains No. 3. Vol. 24. (1995).
- Hail wood, S. Exploring Nozick. Aldershot UK: Avabury, 1996.
- Holmes, R. Nozick on Anarchism. Political Theory No. 2. Vol. 5. (1977).
- Kant, I. Selection, T. M. Green (ed). New York: Cambridge University Press. (1959).
- Lacey, A. Robert Nozick. Princeton University Press, 2001.
- Locke, J. Two Treartises. Indianapolis: Bobbs Inc, 1952.
- Nozick, R. Anarchy, State, Utopia. New York: Basic Books Inc. 1974
- Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: OUP. 1972.
