Anarchy State and Utopia

191 Pages·2001·17.16 MB·English

by  Robert Nozick

ANARCHY,
STATE,AND}
~ UTOPIA

ROBERT NOZICK |

ASW
an ai amg mm

aint 588,194,189, 9991, 192, 1,
Ta oon t,o, tm

schon thi ptln maybe pole vel nn ei ee INST,
"yi ra ns tn lomo sig ene

inate in Tle Past Cama}

CONTENTS

Prete
Ackuovledymtents

PART L
Statecuf-Nasuoe Thewry, or How 16 Back
ingot Srase witht Really Trying

1 Why State-oF Nature Theony?

2. The Stace of Nature
WSpiesiASE RABKIN 8

3, Moral Caestesinty ond the State

SGRAL CONRHNAINIS AND MORAL ies

wo

%
4

5

6

Prohibition, Compunsation, and Rick 4
Fear sso momerion Ge
The Sue cr
Tome 6
maosuonuan mins oe

burcher Considerasioes om she Argoment
fir ehe Seace fe

treme 33
PART II

Beynacl the Miniaal State?

Dastebureve Jestce

BNtasiranne st
DIEGTREC LON aN voce OMS AG
Senna. eters ast AROTEANTYESS 303

8

8

16.

Equility, Bay, Exploitation, ber
esssorm, wens >y6

onaserniee a6

Demultesis
“THE wentorhanestnies erene nance 389

PART iil
Cepia
A Framework for Capp
Toren owns sNO RTER OES jaa

26

ar
Crom mugs ISD FOR 226
Nowe
Biblivgras's
Inulex

PREFACE

Troan nose tgs
ms en
mete ai net a
et nc poet no tare
we atamaesee aera Ro
ct isis eam Se
cohen me meron

lanectsize ia the course uf ur .nvessigarinn
‘Our tin cunclusions about the state ate that 3 isin sete,
limited 10 che aarraw fanctinsa of protection
fiuud, enfiacement of canrnacs,
more extensive scare will wile ps

rinse force, thee
W $0 ou, ib justified: chat any
ons eights aoe te be forced co
srlustified; and chat the rsinimal state ie

dd ceria Cains, ad

ingpiving ag well us tight. Yo noteworcy implications a¢e That
che sare -ney ol use votacive apparaces Ti she purpune oF ket
cing some citmens ey ac thers, oe intone 1 put aiviies cw
ptople for their eer goud or peerectinn

Despite the fact chat ic is ably coercive sates toward aes gels
chat are exeluced, whe veluncary onus xmas, suny peracas wll
eject var eanelusions insrandiy, hiowing they cen’? we te Bee
Fieve anything so epparcurly callous euwad the needs and suffering
uf ockers. [ know che: eartion; le was mige wie I fst began co
egsider such views. With re'oceance, T tend myself bscuming
ronvinced wt (as they sr¢ ana’ ofeon called} Libertarian views, dae
ra vrious considerations sad argusnenis. This bovk coany lice
Cideuce uf may earlier eeluctance. Instea, it sonraing tangy’ of the
considerations eed agiaments, whic 1 preset at lncetilly es 7
can Thoreby, Fron the eisk of effeneinge 2oublys fir Car past
: Palace

eqpwunded. cae fe the fst has 1 prods eassns 1s sapere this
penn.

My welvt “latance iv met arevent In this vokene, beware it

has Csappeoned. Ores

have yrs acusteened ce che views
and their oussjwases, and Ungar ste che poliveal reales ebeongh
them (Shoule Tap thas ahey sttuble mx see eheougtt the poe
lescedcealr?) Since many ut the pespie who eae x simile pnsie

rum sre natn and sgid, ac; Glee. aradoicatly, with resent
nent st uiler Ficer ways of being, my now haviuys sntuel
fesypases which bese chaaey pare me in some sal campers. Tea

nn welenme ee Jac Hex mace penple know rd eespoct dis

se me, hing uutgmen me noc eaiLy addojeakie pleasare of
‘inating of dumBtovueling poople by producing sng rasnns co
super psicions they dnl gt eve deeas

Veetce an eke

cde ol sues sonreimpenaep phlowophial «ork
in epistemology ur metipliysies: there are cliborate arguments,
Cine rebureed by unlikely soumtesoasenples, sorpesiog: thes,
pvles, bsteact steuctusl wavitions, challenges 6» Sud auorher
theory mich cs a spucified range uf eases, stareling cunclesions,
and ¢o on. Thovgh this makes for intelli iutsest and excite-
mene if huped, sere aay Fel eat she els shnar achics and polit-
seal philoscpty ie oo risus and imortaa® to he vtained by such
Hasing” tol, Nevertheless, ie may be eae uancuiness an ethics is
foot and in what we naturally huni
ed
ens, Te is though te be an
flee
ssi the view which sealers wil any'eay co accept, ut a view

‘A-caditicacicn af hu received lew cr an exztkacinn of ae

sinriples need noc use labore eg

chjoctios co arher views merely £0 poine cut shee they

sehr ciflers from the eoaes’ cannar argue fir steel muiely by
pulling ur chee che received view condics with 1 Tnstea, it
teil eave en subject doe eseived wesw 2a ebe gseateseintlleceual

via counterargumenes, seruring uf i presup>
pesiunns, and praxencition uf a range of possible situmtsons where

testing and sera

foun its propnedce ate uncomfrrlie wach ies cunsequenns.

‘Even che reader uncanviced by my argumencs should tad hat,
inthe proeass nf meaivirng wel supporting Bis sew, tw has ler-
ifs] and deepened it, Mortoser, 1 ke to thin, intellecuual oa

cesty demands “hse, uccashoally at lease, we gu aut of our way co
conftant strong arguments appored tu aur views, How else ate we

ce proeece nurslics Ire vuntinaing in extor! Bt seems onty fis 2
reine the evader char intellserinl hanety Taw 86 cougers: agate
rmenes sear perhaps ar Fis: in cutsrus Iascinatian may come 1 cP
vince and even to

‘acucal and intwitwe. Caly he eolusal ¢0
Tiseen yuscantees une asainse being ensaared by che crah

‘The contents of this wlume are we paecicutar arguments; ell, L
can indieace tureaer whet is to come, Since I begin with a strong
fore ation of individual sights. [ wear seriously the anarchisr
laces ehat in che ccurse uf maintewoing sss monoprly 66 the use of
Tance ane! protesting everyone sichin 9 reritory. ee site mut
sivlaw imbvidualy rights ankl heme i icerinically imecwes
‘Aukinst this claim, Langue that stace would arise froea anacchy
tas repeusunted by Locke's stare of ature) even thewgh se <ne in
tered this ne ered eo bring 1 abate, hy a pracrse which need Not
vwwlite anyone's righer, Puruing cals ceneral argument of Part t
leads cbeoogh a diversity of issues, use include why mora views
invalyt side conseenines on acrion rather than merely beéag oal=
rected, che ereatment of acimate, why its g0 saxihying 70 ex

plain complecaced pattems arising by proctsacs ie which ey une
incends chem, the rcAsans why some acious ave prubibited eather
than allowed provided! compernation iy tail to sli vitions, the
nonexistince of che decerence theory of punishment. issues about
probibicing risky accious, Hebert Hart's so-called “principce of
Tairness." preerupeive acta, and preventive decenewn. ‘These
issues and ochers ze brunght tu best in investigaciag che nacare
snd trond Isgieniacy.of the stave and of enarchy

Pace I jusides che minimal stere; Pare If comtcods tar 99 more
‘ereasive smote can Be justified. I peacced by arguing, dat = ivee-
sig a

reasons which purpore t+ jstify a mace extensive sate,
don't. Agaiose che claim thar such a stare 1s juseiied in cnet tu
chive of pracice dierbucin: juste among. fs viticeos, {dee
velup a cheory uf juscice (che entirlemenc ehenry) which coos ne
requite any more exensive state, and te che appatarur af this
theory eo dissece and criticize acer theawies of Jistioutive justice
‘which do eovisige a more satens've stace, focusing ompretally on
he rent puwestul theury of Jule Raves, Other reasons ehac snme
rmigin chink justify a more extsive vate ae ecincized, inctuding
‘equality. envy, svurkers’ cntsol, al Maran checries of explnits-
iim. Reader why toad Part I dufficule should tind Parr I eae,
seis Chagos # easier cham Chapter 2.) Part OF aloies with a hypa-
hovel dese

fale cengees
tednieoa, srate Hehe uniquely justifiable or

iption uf bes a shone axtensive sate msighe scike, @
rouke sash a sate vee unacraccise, Dvn i che

te may acer pale and
ncacinag. tardy somsthing to énspire ane or 1 prusti gal
‘sce fighting for, To asses this, i earn to chet preeinently
tuspiring Hagia of social thowgls, uloprea deory. and argue
chat shar can be said icant thin teeliron is precisely che strane
UF the vnnanal sauce. The ayuinet neues 2 camperisoe it
ferent sucttval 6€ shaping # socks, closign devices ce plier de
‘ices, aul the preseneacien of a aupte which ees application of
he machernat ical economists notice. uf dhe cove of an zeonemy
My ecaplusis spon the conclusions which averge from hae
snose ender believe may mislead aoe into thiaké this bank is
ome sors of poll tras. 1 i sar; & isa philosophical explacae
Flow oF fsuts. macy Hein ng i tho owen igh, which rise
avi ancesconncet avben we candle individaal ridts wou Ure stare
‘The wand “exploration” is uppruptiately chosen. One view about
tow to wtite a philosophy book hulds
theovah all <i the: cetals of che views he presents, andl ies prub-
lems. polishing ane tehinang bie view ev present 10 eke word a

1am author shoule eb

finished, cimaplete, aa clegane whale. This is ut my vies. At

any race, [belie

ongoing sarellectual life fr & lye compote work, eotnnng un

fmnishel [weconrations, cisjeueess, opsn quese-cns and pru'tert,

Tacs, side eanectiane, az wel a8 9 wisn Tine of argument. These
"hast words

fart there also 18a place andy fume in oar

is ruow fir weds on subjsees other

Inseed, rhe usual srannes of presenting pliccsnynieal work pur
Ales me. Werks of plilngophy are wriceen ve chaugh ace accbars
Freteve ehera cw Ue the ateolucely Rina word un thei subjece. Dut
28 noe, surly, cht each philosopher chinks eb ie Gly, hank
Goa. has fonnd the ttl aon busle an impregnable tnetess accund

ft We are all yeeuilly vouch snore modese thee tm. For good
ewe Having, feught lang acd hun abour che view ke pov
poses, « plslonpher bas a seesomsbly goal ulea abowe ics area
Deiat the plices whine yout ieceleceaal weight is placed apn
something perhaps too Es

tonnivilieg oF the view mighe begin. the unprcbed assemprions
Iie fees umeusy abut

le bear i, rhe pares ‘where the

‘One fores of philosophical a

ity furs ist pushing and show
ing things 1 4¢ ince sore fixed pevimceer of specite shape AML
those things ave lye eu eer, and sey must be fi 2. Yn push
seid shove dhe -vateria. incu the ciged area gotving it in the
hewaclay ur ee sie, aad i bulges sue an arenes. You ren
uel ae pres in “he proncding bee

prtacing yo anteher
in anther place So you push and shove and clip off eamers Front
the Ups su cell i ane you press 19 une! fna'y almost

thing oes uaseably moke or less in chee; wnat awe gras lense
Jar was se that it wan’: be eased. (OF crue, i's tall ie
‘tude, Thete's also the costing and cajoling. Ané the body: Ete
lish. Uc8, you ind an angle Fim whch i bees Team enact
fit eed cake a soapshor; at fast shctter spe! before something
ese bulges our ror noticcably. Thea, back to ee dirk t0

rouca ap he rents, spe, sued tee i the tabi et the perimeter,
A chat semains ic eo publish cae pbetogsaph at a rpcesentacon

of cory How Uhiugs ate, and to mows baw nerhing, firs erly

Inga ang aie
No phikuophes sigs: “There's waeee T savted, bere’s whrte 1

feuded up: the mer

‘here co bere: in par

pushings, stavangs, mauligs, gougings, ateichings, anal ip

faness in any was ix Toe F wot Tram

lar, hate ars the most auisle storia

Ings char | commited duriag the trip; ru fu nestion the things
fac away ancl Sgnorecl, sna al those averings of gaze

The sctigore of philotes absa: the seaknesses they pete
feive in tlwir yan sews i ave, I chunk, simply 4 gucci of
pilsuphicad honesty and wneegciy, chaugh se 4 thar at least
incomes thie whea brvughe oo enascieusness, he reicenre 6 com
neces rick philosephers’ porpaces ta formalising viows. Why ks
they strive © Force everprhing ity that one fc purieaecer? Why

noc anocher perimesce. or, mote exl-ally, why noe Tease thicas

they are¢ Whar dacs having, eveything wishin » perimeter
ae for us? Wer ce we wat i ou? (What ote if shield us Zam?)
Teom these deep (and frightesing) questions, T huge ut to Be able
ro manage te averr mp geac un Facute work,

Llomewe. sy ceasoa for mensioning thst ists hace isnot chat
el they persuin snore srongly te this work shan to ether philu-
Suphigal writings Wer Fy a ein book as, 1 chink, covert

This is or my way of tacing i bach, Racaee. 1 propuse tn give
sv Prete

all ap yao: che doubes sid somes and uneceauones swell as the
elit, convictions. and argements.

[Ar those perticular points in my argoments, tsansitions, as
suinpesens, ane] a0 fons, where [feel che strsin, J ery ta camment
fr leas: tp draw the reader's attention co har makes me uneasy
Tm atleance, itis pessible to voice sume general cheoretical wore,
‘This book doce out picseat a prise ebeory of ebe roots basis of
individal cigs i does noe conta # precise scarement and jo5-
tifcacion of 4 theury a¥ eteiburive pumishimene; ns precise srare-
Iueut of the principles of che eiperice shonry of distributive jase
tite i presents, Much of what T say cscs upon or uses goneral
features that [believe such theories would have ere chey ayorked
hnat, T ul Hike eo syrite on chess tupies ju che furnre. Ik cl, ne

Gdovibt the fesolring theuty will differ froca wat | now eect ite
be, and his wald zequie some madifeations In exe saperseruc-
rave erected bers. He would be oli co expect that | shall com
plore chese Fandameneal sks carsicrurily; as it vould be to

Femain silene until they axe done. Berbaps thi essay wil stimculice
srhers es hep.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T. fret nine chapoers of chis cstay were wuccen during

aan ora, while 1 war a Fellow ae the Concer far Advanced
Srudy ia the Uehavoral Seiances ar Palo AR,
ruced academic insczution bate ing oe indisidulis mandy. Vase

a enininaly struc

ory grareiel ro the Centet andl is sal lar providing an envieon-
exene 30 conducive 4 getting things dons. Chopter 16 wis pre
seed i a synposiven ou "opie end Unopianism” ac a messing
Af tho Raster Division oF the American Philosophical Association
my 169; sore puince Flom that delivered addvess appear scat
ja te ether Caypeers. The whle manuscrépe eas rewritten dutiag
the serumer of 1973

Ferbara Nozick's abjecrions to some of che penicions defended
Jere elped exe w@ sharpen my views: 9 addition she helped nos
rmously in innumerable ocr ways. ce sevaral year, J have bene
fred from Michacl Walzee’s coments, questions, and cous
srgumencs as Hrred aur on him ideas om some topics of dis e885
T have received derailed sad very Melplul written comments
fon the whole manusceipt written st the Cencer from W. .
Quine, Desek Parks, sued Gilbert Harman, va Chapter 7 fam
Jahn Rawls and Frank Michelman, and on an ealisr draft of Pare 1
Thoms Alas Dershuwitt, Talay have benefited fiom a discussion
‘ith Rosa Dautkia on how competing protective agencies
vould) waek, and from suggestions by Burmor, Dreben. Various
stages of various pomicas of dt manuscript were sead and dis-
sural, o8ct che Yeats, a meecings of the Souiety for Kehical and
Legal Poilagophy (SELES; the regular discussions with its members
have been a sm

co af wcolleceul scepularion wna pleneue, Te wat
along conversrion about sux years ago wich Muttay Rothbard ehat
sumutaced ey intctost in individualise anarchist eheury, Ever
PART

State-of-Nature Theory,
or How to Back into a State
without Really Trying
CHAPTER
1

Why State-of-Nature
Theory?

sotinn would have 20
be che fritfolness, ineerest, and te

aching ienplirarions of the
theory that resules. Fur the (less crusting? rvders seho dire some
assorance in acvance, thie chepeer discusses ceivous why 41 6 irn-
[ptcanc 0 purece staceof-nanze cheony, eens for rhinking. thar
‘hoory would be a fief one, Thece rons necessarily are soenc-
shar abscracr and mecatheureical. The best esson iy the develuped!
cheory itself.
4 Seated Nato ‘they

“The fundawnental question of polecal pluorpns, one that pee
codes questions abouc hor che sete anal be organized, i
vehicles cheze should be any srare ar all. Why not bawe anarchy?
Since anarchise thecry, Wf topable, undeecurs the whole subject of
‘priuia! philosophy. ies appropriate 19 begin policisal philosophy
‘wile am eeaminacicn of i major dheoreical alternative. ‘hase
‘Who scrwider anarchesas aoe an unattractive ckerine will chink i
peste chac

ltical philosophy ovr bere ax ell, Ochers aa
Feutly will await whar is ro conse alterwseds, Yet, as we shal sce,
srchises and anarchisis alike, those who spring ginyetly from che
starving poine wt) ay eocae reluctant srgued away fom ity ca
aurse thar begiouing the subject of political philosophy with stare
ofenamire theory has nx sxMactan, purpose. Such = purse is a

scot whew epistemeloay is begun with an aricept wy eelute che
skepue.i

Which anatchie situation should ws investigate tw amiwer the
‘question of why noc annechy? Perlags te one chut would exiee if
the wcecal political suariog cite’, wehile na eeher pusible polit
sal one did. Ge apart fons the yrituisuas sssamnpcion chat evosy
ne every
rus anmacageshily of pursuing thee couanectcaaal 16 atrive at

e woul be in che ssene aonsrare boa: and rhe ener:

4 partivule sitction, chee situation would lak funcumeneal thei
retical iueerest. Ta be sure, if rhar venstate situation were sue
fiienly awful. cheee seule he a reasow co setuin Exe disman-
Hing ur destroying ¢ particular slats and replacing ie wich none,

i mould be more promising 10 focus upon a fsndamensal ab-
srset descriprian that woul compass al situations of were,
including “where we aeeuld now be il," ‘Were this description
aueful enough. che tere would coine our os x predered alveraatt,
viewed as alfeceenatcly as 4 trip ry the dentist. Such awfal de
striptions earely convince, au wot anerely because they Ail oo
‘heer, The subjects of psychology and saciclogy are far coo Feeble
tn suppurt weneraliaing so pessirmisically arise all sucieies and.
petsons, espeially sinee che argument depends upon aed mukiny

such pessimistic aswnprions abuse buwr the state operas. Ol

‘why SeoreoF-Nanuee thang? 5

course, people know something of how actual sares have operted,
and they differ in cheie views, Given the enormows impurtance of
the choice be:ween the stave and arurchy, «ution right suggest
fae uit che “sninimas” criteian, and hxcus upon a pessimisie s-
timate of the nonstate sirantion: che stare woul be <eunpated with

ae count penssistcilly escibes] Hobbesian srare of nacura. Hue

in wing che minim crierina, chit Hebbesize.sievaion should

be comparsd with che scst pessimistically earibed. poss
stars, including fiiore oes, Such a camgurison, surely, the waest
stece of mucuze would win, Those who view che state 25 ap abomi-
ration will aot find minimax very ornpelling, capers since ie
sccm ee cred always briny back the stuce if chat cape 1b seem
leseable. The “maximax” criterion, un the other hand, would
oreed a the mast oprimisri assimmptivns aboue buw things
‘ronkd werk oar—Godwrin, if yma Like chat sort of thiug, But
irepialent optimism alsa lacks crawictina. Indeed. aw pavpostl
devsion eviction for chnice under uncertinny carries eansiction
Tere, ont covs maxinsiring expeceed wailry an che basis of such
fea: peubutiiies.

‘Mare “0 be point, espcually Toe deciding what poas one shoul
ey co achieve would he 19 ferus upon a vansrare scuaring

suhich people geaerly wisp mon constraints and generaliy act
as chey vughe. Such an assunptign i out sully op
feet assume that all people act exaecly as ey should. Yer this
stale-of-mature siccatinn 4s the hese anarchic siuscion ene reason
ably could have for. Hoace invesrigaricg its narure and éefeces is uf
crucial impantance 9 deciding whecher there should Be @ state
rater thet aoaecliy. Wes could shox thar dhe stare wauld be st
petict even te this most favo siaarion oF anarchy, the hese chat
being

jini, 1 doos

ralitieally can le hoped fr, af woul arise by 2 process

ro morally Fempecinieibl: seeps, oF would be an incpe
ruse, this wovkl provide a ratiansle for the star's exstence, fe
would justity the ste. *

‘This investigation will mise ehe questign of whether all le ag

The comm with 3 suey ea pases ales ating Ge ett of
Tes cour and ineveble prosss of weron allie ae cial
ery presence ing dying. Suu Heury woolly a 20%,