Robert Nozick, an American philosopher born in the 1960s, explores the concept of distributive justice through a minimalist state in his work, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. A minimal state refers to a state that obtains the least amount of power possible without becoming an anarchy. Throughout Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick argues that the minimal state is the only state that can be justified and will not violate people’s rights. By exploring various theories and principles such as the Entitlement Theory and Principle of Rectification, Nozick examines where extensive states fail, therefore, proving Nozick’s belief in a minimalist state to be the most just state. Using Nozick’s arguments throughout his work, various ideals throughout Anarchy,
…show more content…
According to Nozick, a minimal state is necessary because the rights of people will be violated if a more extensive state is present. Nozick states, “the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified,” (149). As stated above, a minimal state has the least amount of power possible, yet is devoted to enforce contracts and protect people from crimes. Nozick believes this is the most a state can intervene in the lives of the people without violating people’s rights. Nozick views rights as the right to property and right to do what one pleases with their property. An example of a principle that Nozick would believe violates people’s rights is central distribution. Central distribution states that something, such as the state, decides how resources should be distributed to individuals. Nozick does not believe in central distribution because the state would have too much power, instead, Nozick believes that people should obtain things through voluntary exchange for something else, or as a gift. Voluntary exchange is essential for Nozick’s minimal state. If the exchange is not voluntary, then the exchange is not just. Nozick further expands on his beliefs in how people can justly obtain something through the Entitlement …show more content…
Ultimately, the Principle of Wrongful Possession connects the beliefs within Markets Without Limits and Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The authors of both works believe individuals are entitled to and may sell goods, yet goods that are morally wrong, such as child pornography or stolen goods, cannot be justly distributed or obtained. Although both agree on this topic, Nozick strongly believes the state should have little to no regulations of the market, while Brennan and Jaworski are not necessarily opposed to regulations, but they do agree with an open
According to Nozick, a minimal state is necessary because the rights of people will be violated if a more extensive state is present. Nozick states, “the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified,” (149). As stated above, a minimal state has the least amount of power possible, yet is devoted to enforce contracts and protect people from crimes. Nozick believes this is the most a state can intervene in the lives of the people without violating people’s rights. Nozick views rights as the right to property and right to do what one pleases with their property. An example of a principle that Nozick would believe violates people’s rights is central distribution. Central distribution states that something, such as the state, decides how resources should be distributed to individuals. Nozick does not believe in central distribution because the state would have too much power, instead, Nozick believes that people should obtain things through voluntary exchange for something else, or as a gift. Voluntary exchange is essential for Nozick’s minimal state. If the exchange is not voluntary, then the exchange is not just. Nozick further expands on his beliefs in how people can justly obtain something through the Entitlement …show more content…
Ultimately, the Principle of Wrongful Possession connects the beliefs within Markets Without Limits and Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The authors of both works believe individuals are entitled to and may sell goods, yet goods that are morally wrong, such as child pornography or stolen goods, cannot be justly distributed or obtained. Although both agree on this topic, Nozick strongly believes the state should have little to no regulations of the market, while Brennan and Jaworski are not necessarily opposed to regulations, but they do agree with an open