As a preliminary rationalization of this review, it must be made explicit that this is also a critique. I could have effortlessly given this book a five star rating, and it would have been deserved. However, there is much research that is necessary, at least in my estimation, to attempting to read and comprehend the arguments made throughout the text. Conceivably, this introductory explanation will substantiate what follows the review / critique.
Prior to beginning the reading of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a look at the circumstances – both political and social – that Robert Nozick was writing in could go towards endeavoring to understand the intent behind the text. A few years subsequent to the release of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, the …show more content…
Anarchy, State, and Utopia is divided into three sections; just as the title indicates. In this first part, “Anarchy,” Nozick, presents an important argument of how the “minimal state” could arise legitimately, without violating a person’s rights. Moreover, Nozick’s arguments in this section provide an important confutation of anarchy. It seems significant to note that Nozick appears to take the Anarchist’s argument seriously (this is one of the few times I have seen an author discuss the anarchist’s view, and present an argument that seems unanswerable by the anarchists). Leaving the first section, it seems plausible that Nozick has set forth arguments that do in fact justify the legitimacy of the “minimal …show more content…
This is where it is important to understand Rawls’ theory of justice. In my opinion, Nozick has distorted Rawls in this section. I will leave this assertion vague for now but, if you do read the book, take the time to go back to what Nozick claims is Rawls’ theory, and match it up with what Rawls’ actually writes in A Theory of Justice. Pay special attention to where Nozick starts by making it clear that Hart and Rawls’ theories are different yet, goes on to equivocate Rawls’ theory with that of Hart’s (see, for example, page 90, “The Principle of Fairness”). The second section should be where the most time is spent, because this is where Nozick’s arguments tend to get strange. There is so much going on in this section, that I am convinced a person could write an entire book just on Nozick’s arguments from this section.
The third section focuses on explaining various theories of utopian societies, and making the case (although Nozick does not explicitly endorse any one argument) that the “minimal state” is the most preferred or “best of all possible worlds”. Out of the three sections of the book, this is the one that I think is the least important to read. In this section, Nozick leaves questions open ended, and suggests to look at other political thinkers to see if they had it right (specifically, look at the reference to Tocqueville
Prior to beginning the reading of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a look at the circumstances – both political and social – that Robert Nozick was writing in could go towards endeavoring to understand the intent behind the text. A few years subsequent to the release of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, the …show more content…
Anarchy, State, and Utopia is divided into three sections; just as the title indicates. In this first part, “Anarchy,” Nozick, presents an important argument of how the “minimal state” could arise legitimately, without violating a person’s rights. Moreover, Nozick’s arguments in this section provide an important confutation of anarchy. It seems significant to note that Nozick appears to take the Anarchist’s argument seriously (this is one of the few times I have seen an author discuss the anarchist’s view, and present an argument that seems unanswerable by the anarchists). Leaving the first section, it seems plausible that Nozick has set forth arguments that do in fact justify the legitimacy of the “minimal …show more content…
This is where it is important to understand Rawls’ theory of justice. In my opinion, Nozick has distorted Rawls in this section. I will leave this assertion vague for now but, if you do read the book, take the time to go back to what Nozick claims is Rawls’ theory, and match it up with what Rawls’ actually writes in A Theory of Justice. Pay special attention to where Nozick starts by making it clear that Hart and Rawls’ theories are different yet, goes on to equivocate Rawls’ theory with that of Hart’s (see, for example, page 90, “The Principle of Fairness”). The second section should be where the most time is spent, because this is where Nozick’s arguments tend to get strange. There is so much going on in this section, that I am convinced a person could write an entire book just on Nozick’s arguments from this section.
The third section focuses on explaining various theories of utopian societies, and making the case (although Nozick does not explicitly endorse any one argument) that the “minimal state” is the most preferred or “best of all possible worlds”. Out of the three sections of the book, this is the one that I think is the least important to read. In this section, Nozick leaves questions open ended, and suggests to look at other political thinkers to see if they had it right (specifically, look at the reference to Tocqueville