Has anyone read this 1974 defense of the minimal state? If so, what are your thoughts?
I think it's probably the most important book ever written in libertarian political philosophy, but not because of its defense of the minimal state. While his core argument for the inevitability of the state have been discredited by a number of people, I think that Nozick's analysis of libertarianism as a general doctrine was groundbreaking. Also, it's probably the most widely read libertarian book ever, and is the starting point for most mainstream discussions of libertarian political philosophy. So yea, read it.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
I've read it. As Danny has pointed out, his criticism of market anarchish as been since debunked, but Nozick offers a huge amount of material to work with, and touches upon many issues of relevance to libertarians; he also shreds collectivist modes of organization apart. While he's a bit tainted by neoclassical economics, the book still is well worth reading.
-Jon
The chill that you feel is the herald of your doom! Irenicus' Diaries.
djlogiq: Has anyone read this 1974 defense of the minimal state? If so, what are your thoughts?
If you want to know what austrian economics have to say about Nozick's book I would advice you too start with listening to David Gordons lecture on the subject. http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=98
1. Could someone give me some resources where I could read exactly how his theory has been "debunked"?
I have a number of objections to his reasoning.
1. He argues that in moving from a Lockean state of nature to a dominant protection agency (DPA), nobodies rights need be violated and the DPA will cover everbody, even those who don't pay. However, there are two problems with this. The first is that, during the period in which there are multiple protection agencies fighting for control, if we assume that people are rational self-interested actors with perfect information, people would most likely pick the agency that would rule in favour of its clients, not an agency that would use a tried and tested method and thus possibly find them guilty. Who would pay an agency that threw them in jail?
2. Secondly, he uses a game-theoretical approach to argue that the best strategy is for everybody to pay the DPA, because those who don't have less ability to be compensated if their rights are violated. However, the game-theory changes when we add the proviso that the DPA must protect everybody, including those who don't pay. Once this happens, then, again assuming rational self-interested actors, the best game-theoretical solution is to not pay because one still has protection. As soon as this is allowed, people will stop paying, raising the cost to those who do, who will then drop out until nobody is paying and the system will collapse. We are then back to square one.
3. Nozick wants to discount the possibility for there to be a situation where one person owns all the resources of a certain type in the world, so he introduces the Lockean proviso which says that people have to be better off than in a state of nature. However, the Lockean proviso against owning all the resources, when applied to the DPA, means that they own all the protection resources, thus creating an inconsistency.
4. Further to point (3), the DPA, having a monopoly on protection services, can then engage in monopoly pricing, which hurts the consumers of their service and produces inefficiency. Since this is unlike a normal business, they can effectively prevent any competition by simply throwing any potential competition in jail or killing them. Imagine what would happen in the US if someone tried to set up a rival US army or rival police force.
No quotation marks needed - it has been. Anyway, check the end of Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty. He offers his own critiques there in addition to some other devastating ones. Your second criticism is right on point (although I think you need to do a bit more reading in Austrian analytics), as is your last, but the third is missing the very point Nozick is making. Nozick is arguing that unless an appropriation can demonstrably increase (or at least not diminish) the welfare of those deprived of access to the resource relative to a situation it was not appropriated, it should not take place. The Lockean proviso certainly can be disputed, but it has nothing to do with being in exclusive control over a given resource.
I would also suggest reading the introduction to "The Ethics of Liberty" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who criticises Nozicks methological approach.
mises needs to obtain rights to this so they can post in mp3!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap