When crafting a political philosophy, a special attention must be paid to the values which define it. Without a strong foundation of what is important, it’s impossible to make arguments about what outcomes are good, and thus what paths to use to get there. For Robert Nozick, that defining value is personal freedom. According to Nozick in his work “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, self-ownership, the right to decide how you allocate your time and resources, is the ultimate freedom, and anything that abridges those rights is unjust. He believes that the essence of freedom involves his concept of entitlement theory (Nozick 151). He believes that:
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled …show more content…
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2 (Nozick 151)
Fundamentally, Nozick argues that, in working towards a fully free society, enforcement of the dictates of entitlement theory, in the form of eliminating taxation and most regulation on transactions, is all that is necessary for people to be considered equal and free, and enforcing any further restriction on actions if an affront to inherent human rights. While Nozick’s vision of a society based around protecting each individual’s freedom and right to self-ownership through the entitlement theory seems enticing, it would actually lead to the exact kind of captive life that he seeks to avoid. While they are the most commonly argued about, governments are not the only bodies that can infringe on the rights of others. Even with regulations in place to prevent active infringement on the rights of others, there are avenues for those with more resources to exert control over those without. And unlike a representative government, the public has no control over the actions of companies that they don’t hold any level of ownership of. In these situations, actions …show more content…
In ways that aren’t always initially evident, anyone’s actions can affect the freedom of others. Therefore, it makes sense to have some level of government regulation over private actions. For example, if a clear link can be drawn between very low wages and an inability of workers to afford basic necessities, or take time off to search for more financially rewarding work, societal institutions should be able step in to protect the freedom of those workers. As long as the system of government is collectively agreed upon and largely representative, regulations coming from it are relatively consistent with Nozick’s principles with regard to transactions. Regulations on minimum wages and working environments established through a representative government would simply be a part of the transaction between workers and employers. Instead of providing conditions individually, workers would simply be coming together to negotiate. Government could simply be looked at as a union for all members of the society to protect themselves in transaction with each other. In a similar way, taxation can be seen, instead of as forced labor (Nozick 169), as a price society, as a representation of the market, has placed on transactions. Since the value of things in a free market are determined by the amount people are willing to pay for
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled …show more content…
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2 (Nozick 151)
Fundamentally, Nozick argues that, in working towards a fully free society, enforcement of the dictates of entitlement theory, in the form of eliminating taxation and most regulation on transactions, is all that is necessary for people to be considered equal and free, and enforcing any further restriction on actions if an affront to inherent human rights. While Nozick’s vision of a society based around protecting each individual’s freedom and right to self-ownership through the entitlement theory seems enticing, it would actually lead to the exact kind of captive life that he seeks to avoid. While they are the most commonly argued about, governments are not the only bodies that can infringe on the rights of others. Even with regulations in place to prevent active infringement on the rights of others, there are avenues for those with more resources to exert control over those without. And unlike a representative government, the public has no control over the actions of companies that they don’t hold any level of ownership of. In these situations, actions …show more content…
In ways that aren’t always initially evident, anyone’s actions can affect the freedom of others. Therefore, it makes sense to have some level of government regulation over private actions. For example, if a clear link can be drawn between very low wages and an inability of workers to afford basic necessities, or take time off to search for more financially rewarding work, societal institutions should be able step in to protect the freedom of those workers. As long as the system of government is collectively agreed upon and largely representative, regulations coming from it are relatively consistent with Nozick’s principles with regard to transactions. Regulations on minimum wages and working environments established through a representative government would simply be a part of the transaction between workers and employers. Instead of providing conditions individually, workers would simply be coming together to negotiate. Government could simply be looked at as a union for all members of the society to protect themselves in transaction with each other. In a similar way, taxation can be seen, instead of as forced labor (Nozick 169), as a price society, as a representation of the market, has placed on transactions. Since the value of things in a free market are determined by the amount people are willing to pay for