Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join

Book corner · Advanced

Anarchy, State, and Utopia

Robert Nozick · 1974 · Long (over 350 pages)

3.5 from 2 reviews · 25 views

JusticeAnalyticLiberalism
+ Add to my shelf

Be the first to put it on your shelf.

Discuss this book Review it

What it is

Nozick's libertarian answer to the question of what a state may legitimately do. Part I argues against the anarchist that a minimal state, limited to protection against force, theft and fraud and the enforcement of contracts, could arise from a state of nature by an invisible-hand process without violating anyone's rights. Part II argues that nothing more than the minimal state is justified. Its centrepiece is the entitlement theory of justice in holdings, on which a distribution is just if it arose from just acquisition and just transfer, with rectification for past injustice. Nozick argues that patterned principles of distribution require continual interference with liberty, illustrated by the Wilt Chamberlain example, and criticises Rawls's A Theory of Justice at length. Part III presents the minimal state as a framework within which people can pursue different utopias. The book also introduces the experience machine and the utility monster.

Why read it

It is the most powerful philosophical case for the minimal state and the essential counterpart to Rawls.

Where to start

Read Part II, especially the entitlement theory, the Wilt Chamberlain example and the discussion of Rawls, then go back to Part I.

Talking about Robert Nozick

Reviews

  1. Deepa Nair

    For a law student working on Ambedkar and affirmative action, the rectification principle is the most interesting and least developed part. Nozick concedes that past injustices might justify substantial redistribution, then moves on. I wanted him to stay with that thought. The book is clever; the account of rights is asserted more than argued.

  2. Javier Morales

    I teach economics and give Rawls and Nozick together, as recommended. Nozick writes with more wit than almost any political philosopher, and the Wilt Chamberlain argument still makes students pause. I think the theory of just acquisition is far too thin to bear the weight placed on it, and Nozick half admits as much. Brilliant and frustrating.