Philosopher views
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Bibliography
- INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM IS THE BEST POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC OPTION
- SOCIAL CONCERNS SHOULD NOT TAKE PRIORITY OVER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
- MINIMAL STATES BEST GUARANTEE FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE
Implications For DebateNozick’s usefulness for debaters is obvious. He is an articulate and comprehensive proponent of libertarianism and minimal government. The most important feature of his philosophy is that it does not call for ruthless treatment of the less fortunate. In fact, he seems to suggest that more good will come to the disadvantaged if people have the government off their backs and are able to help in the ways they see fit. Moreover, Nozick gives good reasons for why the individual ought to stand as the basic unit of value analysis. In this way, he is an effective critic of utilitarianism and collectivism in general. By not sacrificing individuals’ responsibility to help one another, he shows that a moral society can result from minimal state intervention and a deference to individual conscience. Finally, many debaters quote and advocate the value system of John Rawls, who calls for redistribution to favor the less-fortunate members of society. Nozick answers Rawls head-on, and the availability of this refutation should deepen and improve debates about Rawlsian justice. Debaters are encouraged to read one or more of the excellent anthologies devoted to criticism and defense of Robert Nozick’s libertarianism. Books such as Equality and Liberty: Analyzing Rawls and Nozick and Reading Nozick: Essays on Anarchy, State and Utopia are full of a wide range of ideas and advocates concerning the most important political question of our time: distribution of goods. BibliographyNozick, Robert. ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974). ________ . PHILOSOPHICAL EXPLANATIONS (Oxford: Oxford University Ness, 1981). ________. HE EXAMINED LIFE (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989). . THE NORMATIVE THEORY OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICE (New York: Garland Press, 1990). ________. THE NATURE OF RATIONALITY (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). Corlett, J.A., editor. EQUALITY AND LIBERTY: ANALYZING RAWLS AND NOZICK (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991). Machan, T.R. INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR RIGHTS (La Salle, Indiana: Open Court Press, 1989). INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM IS THE BEST POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC OPTION1. ALL PERSONS MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO PLAN THEIR OWN LIVES Robert Nozick, libertarian philosopher. ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA, 1974, p. 50. A person’s shaping his life in accordance with some overall plan is his way of giving meaning to his life; only a being with the capacity to so shape his life can have or strive for a meaningful life.
Robert Nozick, libertarian philosopher. ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA, 1974, p. 166. If entitlements to holdings are rights to dispose of them, then social choice must take place within the constraints of how people choose to exercise these rights. If any patterning is legitimate, it falls within the domain of social choice, and hence is constrained by people’s rights.
1. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “SOCIAL” GOOD, SINCE THERE ARE ONLY INDIVIDUALS Robert Nozick, libertarian philosopher. ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA, 1974, pp. 32-3. But there is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individuals, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. What happens is that something is done for the sake of others. Talk of an overall social good covers this up. 2. MORAL CONSTRAINTS APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT A SOCIAL GOOD Robert Nozick, libertarian philosopher. ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA, 1974, p. 33. The moral side constraints upon what we may do, I claim, reflect the fact of our separate existences. They reflect the fact that no moral balancing act can take place among us; there is no moral outweighing of one of our lives by others so as to lead to a greater overall social good. There is no justified sacrifice of some of us for others. This root idea, namely, that there are different individuals with separate lives and so no one may be sacrificed for others, underlies the existence of moral side constraints, but it also, I believe, leads to a libertarian side constraint that prohibits aggression against another.
1. ECONOMIC FREEDOM CHECKS UNEQUAL POLITICAL POWER Robert Nozick, libertarian philosopher. ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA, 1974, p. 272. Economically well-off persons desire greater political power, in a nonminimal state, because they can use this power to give themselves differential economic benefits. Where such a locus of power exists, it is not surprising that people attempt to use it for their own ends. The illegitimate use of a state by economic interests for their own ends is based upon a preexisting illegitimate power of the state to enrich some persons at the expense of others. Eliminate that illegitimate power of giving differential economic benefits and you eliminate or drastically restrict the motive for wanting political influence.
Robert Nozick, libertarian philosopher. ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA, 1974, p. 272. The minimal state best reduces the chances of such takeover or manipulation of the state by persons desiring power or economic benefits, especially if combined with a reasonably alert citizenry, since it is the minimally desirable target for such takeover or manipulation. Nothing much is to be gained by doing so, and the cost to citizens if it occurs is minimized.
Robert Nozick, libertarian philosopher. ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA, 1974, p. 272. To strengthen the state and extend the range of its functions as a way of preventing it from being used by some portion of the population makes it a more valuable prize and a more alluring target for corrupting by anyone able to offer an officeholder something desirable; it is, to put it gently, a poor strategy.
Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|