Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your two complimentary articles for this month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

You can register for a free account to have four complimentary articles per month. We will occasionally email you a newsletter, from which you can unsubscribe at any time. We do not sell personal data or otherwise disclose personal information to other organisations.

Philosophical Haiku

Robert Nozick (1938-2002)

by Terence Green

Modern slavery –
The state become oppressor.
To be just, do right.

Nozick in The Libertarian Review, Dec. 1977

Provoked by John Rawls’s quest for social justice, in 1974 his Harvard colleague Robert Nozick published Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In it, he argued that the state ought to do no more than ensure the peace is kept and that contracts are enforced. This is the classic libertarian position, restated for the modern era. Anything beyond this minimal role for the state, Nozick said, could never be justified, for it would inevitably involve a breach of individual rights. Income tax, for instance, is essentially a form of forced labour, since the money taken from you effectively means your time is spent working for nothing, or in other words, slavery.

Nozick argued that philosophers like Rawls, who want to create a blueprint for the perfect society ordered according to some measure of justice, would inevitably end by transgressing the rights of individuals in the pursuit of some abstract ideal. Instead, said Nozick, justice should proceed in a piecemeal fashion, by focusing on the rightness of each particular interaction people engage in. Provided my transaction with you is freely entered into by both parties, then it is fine: we don’t need to consider whether it will contribute to the creation of some ideal state of affairs for the community.

Nozick’s approach means that the redistribution of income by the state, for instance, for education, welfare or healthcare, can never be justified, unless each citizen gives their consent to the transaction. At this point many people throw up their hands in outrage; but if you can contain your indignation, Nozick’s arguments are worth thinking about. Even if you utterly disagree with him, his arguments will force you to clarify the basis of your own views. On what moral grounds does the state take money from some people and give it to others? Is it ever acceptable to ignore the rights of some to achieve the greater good? What sort of a society do we want? Is it reasonable to think we can achieve it?

They’re not easy questions, but given the power of the modern state, it’s worth spending at least a few minutes thinking about them.

Terence Green is a writer, historian, and lecturer who lives in Eastbourne, New Zealand.