Talk:Anarchy, State, and Utopia

minimal state leads to minimal state?
The article states, "To support the idea of the minimal state, Nozick posits an ultraminimal state as a thought experiment and attempts to show how it will lead to a minimal state." Is this really what he does? Why would you support the idea of the minimal state by showing how an ultraminmimal state would lead to a minimal state? Zensufi 14:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is what he does...the point being to demonstrate that a less-than-minimal state will evolve into a minimal state necessarily (re: the point about the book being an argument against anarcho-capitalism, etc.) Christopher Parham (talk) 10:45, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Christopher Parham is correct, here's a part from the introduction which explains what Nozick is trying to prove:

"Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection."

In his book Nozick also wants to show how a minimal state could evolve from state of nature (=anarchy) without coercion. "Ultraminimal state" is one step from anarchy and protective associations to the actual minimal state.

Needs much more disscussion of Criticisms
This article is decent right now, but given the unpopularity of Nozick's positions much more should be said about his critics. In particular the responses of John Rawls and Michael Walzer should be mentioned, as well as Susan Okin's criticisms. I could maybe start on this at some point, but anyone familiar with the literature on all this should jump in. Snowboardpunk 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty good indeed and does justice to the book; regarding the critics, i've been working a bit on "Anarchy" for my PhD thesis and there is ... an entire library of articles hacking at some point or another of Nozick's theory, coming from basically all sides of the philosophical and political spectrum. So, a proper treatment or even listing of the different critics might bring you to an article whose length is close to that of a book -:(

More specifically, Rawls answer to libertarianism and in particular to Nozick's undermining of the bases of "A theory of justice" is rudimentary, to say the least. While Rawls spend most of his career after the publication of TJ to answer criticism of the book and re-elaborate his original theory in the light of those critics, the ONLY line of attack he never considered seriously is the libertarian one. Actually, it is more like he refused to do so because a consistent derivation from his own meta-ethical foundations can only lead to libertarianism, as was pointed out not only by Nozick but also by Sandel and by Lomasky. Rawls, being a convinced social-democrat, refused for ideological reasons to accept the full results of the ethical individualism from which he deduces his first principle of justice and his critic of utilitarianism. So, whereas he integrates the communitarian position to some extent in "Political Liberalism", he contends himself with a simple brushing away of the libertarian view, a treatment that boils down to an assertion that: "there is only one possible vision of justice or the right, and it is mine" - not fairly convincing nor properly worked out!

This being said, i'm in a tight spot for the moment but i'll have a look at this and try to post something here in a week or two. Cheers, M-

what abut cricsisem form the anti globalzation crwoed ? or erick mack and the tibor mahcahn foks since its more new then rothblad and have devloped his ideas better  thoerys what abut exampeklf of a fail nozaick expermient in russia and in east europe ?is not just like marx that made a insperation for soviet and east europe but failed as a system the same did maybe nozaiack ?did they not try his ideas in argentian  and brazil too? xxxboy82.147.38.2 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Anybody have thoughts on this Leff guy who's described? After 16 years in political philosophy, I've never heard of him. But perhaps he's big with legal theorists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.176.104 (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

John Rawls
Why is nothing mentioned of the Difference Principle, the Original Position? Tourskin (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Theory
The paragraph was very well written and captures the heart of Nozick's argument, however the last sentence was misleading. The language employed the word "unsustainable." The implication of this last sentence is that anarchy fails or somehow leads to chaos and disorder or something which is a complete break from a state of anarchy. I don't think that captures the essence of Nozick's argument. Better understood, Nozick's theory is that a state of anarchy will always lead to a single, dominant, protective agency...a minimalist state. Because anarchy will ALWAYS lead to this minimalist state, its misleading to say that its unsustainable. The system does in fact sustain itself. It wins out; it outcompetes and dominates all others. What emerges is not chaotic or a break from anarchy, its an ordered entity which emerges from anarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.100.210 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rawls' criticism
I cannot find where in Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy Rawls criticizes Nozick in the way this article says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.18.130 (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Alasdair MacIntyre
The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre offers a critique of Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" in his 1981 work, After Virtue, and there may be further work on this critique in MacIntyre's follow up, "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?". -Teetotaler 5 January, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.151.78 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception section
I believe that most of the section discussing Rawls's response to Anarchy, State, and Utopia should be removed. It seems to violate both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Much of it is not even directly relevant: thus, one paragraph begins "In The Law of Peoples, speaking of libertarianism generally...". In other words, the material is not actually about Rawls's view of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but about libertarianism in general, meaning that this is the wrong article for it. Similarly, the section about Justice as Fairness begins, "Although not actually a response, in Justice as Fairness..." I'm going to wait a few days, to research this issue further and give other editors a chance to respond; if there is no response, I'm probably going to go ahead and remove most of the section on Rawls. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although they are not tied directly by citations they are tied together but since there are not any citations you certainly may remove it. On the other hand there are many works that compare the two, for a better encyclopedia, I think it would be better to improve it. NPOV does not seem to apply here, all significant viewpoints should be stated. BUT... they certainly should be cited better than an inline link. It does seem to be original research since we have no idea where these viewpoints came from, it would be nice if the author came back and clarified. Jadeslair (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is a violation of WP:NPOV to include material that isn't actually about Anarchy, State, and Utopia in this article and present it as though it were a response to the book. So I will probably remove that material within the next few days. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct but the book not a romance novel it is a work which presents ideas. I am not opposing you. Just presenting my ideas. Jadeslair (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what your bizarre comment above is supposed to mean. In any case, I have removed the inappropriate material per WP:NOR and other policies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wilt Chamberlain Argument
Maybe I'm missing part of the line of reasoning in this argument. When Wilt receives 250.000 USD additional income, in a rawlesian world a tax system would kick in, redistributing income. If the least wealthy person receives more than 25 cent, he'd be better off. If there would be no tax system, Nozick would be right, but this would be a circular agrument, wouldn't it? In a world in which nobody wants redistribution, there would be no working rule for distribution. Winkelhake (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909065656/http://www.nationalbook.org/nba1975.html to http://www.nationalbook.org/nba1975.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204233747/http://www.listsofbests.com/list/28419-100-most-influential-books-since-world-war-ii to http://www.listsofbests.com/list/28419-100-most-influential-books-since-world-war-ii

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

About the use of the term "patterned distribution"
As much as I have been taught to be my libertarian, Nozickian mentor, I have to object to the use of the term "patterned" in conjunction to income distribution. In here. Because that term is Nozick's innovation, and it doesn't hold much water in today's philosophical community. I'd *want* it to, as a libertarian of sorts who likes the idea, but it still very well can't.

So, as far as I can see it, the idea of "pattern" should be demoted to the body text, and maybe even given scare quotes. It's an influencial idea, to be true, and a nice way to put our libertarian objections to ideological social policy, but I still don't think the idea should go unchallenged, in here, encyclopediacally. Decoy (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ??? patterns is used frequently in nozickian discourse, and is generally a signifier of an objection to nozickian reasoning. it is a valid and useful term within the academic discourse. iirc marxist critics of nozick are willing to use his term and generally do not challenge it in order to take nozick at his best. cf g.a. cohen. Meikkon (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)