Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick (PDF)

Description

The foundational text of libertarian thought, named one of the 100 Most Influential Books since World War II (Times Literary Supplement) First published in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia has since become one of the defining texts in classic libertarian thought. Challenging and ultimately rejecting liberal, socialist, and conservative agendas, Nozick boldly asserts that the rights of individuals are violated as a state’s responsibilities increase—and the only way to avoid these violations rests in the creation of a minimalist state limited to protection against force, fraud, theft, and the enforcement of contracts. Winner of the 1975 National Book Award, Anarchy, State and Utopia remains one of the most philosophically rich defenses of economic liberalism to date. With a new foreword by Thomas Nagel, this revised edition introduces Nozick and his work to a new generation of readers.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐You can get a wonderful overview of the book on Wikipedia. So, rather than try to provide such an overview here, let me offer a few comments on what reading along these lines has meant to me.Nozick’s book is an outstanding logical development, building a philosophical framework upon a presuppositional base of preeminence of individual rights. I’ve read it cover-to-cover with interest and profit. This book provides an intellectual base to the school of Libertarianism that so attracts people in Ayn Rand’s prose. Notably, I have read late-in-life interviews with Nozick in which he said that he became less libertarian as he got older.This book really should be read in conjunction with John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice,” which I have not yet finished cover-to-cover due to its length and unavailability as an audiobook. After reading the most famous parts in Rawls book, I did finish a few good summaries and commentaries on the “Theory of Justice.” Rawls and Nozick were contemporaries in the Philosophy Department at Harvard, and are leading minds on the left and right, respectively, of the American philosophical spectrum.The Nozick logic leads to a world of perfect individual rights. In this world, charity becomes dependent on the free will of individuals who choose to grant charity. In this world, the more harsh aspects of Social Darwinism become morally permissible. However, the economist’s problem of Moral Hazard (the freeloader problem) is completely solved. One who holds individual rights to be preeminent sees this Nozick system as perfectly satisfying the Golden Rule (aka principle of reciprocity), because at the formation of the social contract, all agree to accept individual rights as preeminent, thus “doing unto others as we would have them do to us.”The Rawls logic stems from applying the Golden Rule prior to developing the social contract behind a “veil of ignorance,” in which founders/citizens do not yet know the circumstances and advantages of their birth. While complete individual rights may have been present while drawing up the social contract “behind the veil of ignorance,” once out in society a measure of compassion and charity becomes almost obligatory, due to agreements made behind the veil of ignorance. In this world, the more harsh aspects of Social Darwinism will not be allowed by the social contract. However, this world is more susceptible to economist’s problem of Moral Hazard (the freeloader problem) than Nozick’s world.Interestingly, both the Nozick and Rawls approach can be reconciled with both the Golden Rule and Kant’s Categorical Imperative, as can Ayn Rand’s thesis (and I’ve read papers by philosopher graduate students and Ph.D graduates doing so).My bottom line? If men and women were gods and goddesses, either of these systems could make a happy world. The problem is that we are not.

⭐Robert Nozick’s Anarchy State and Utopia attempts to provide three different arguments for two different conclusions. The first argument is that anarchy is an impossible system, and thus it is necessary (both morally and practically) to have at least a minimal state. The second argument is that there are no practical, moral, or positive reasons to institute provisions into a state more than a minimal state. The final argument is that a utopian world is one where individuals are free to decide the utopian model they prefer without external limitations prohibiting that decision (outside of those set within each particular small community that, if they did not exist, would fundamentally change the character of that particular community). I found both his arguments and conclusions convincing, and many of his views on the nature of rights I found compelling.Still, his writing style can be difficult. He is an academic (a Harvard academic no less), and his chief concern is addressing other academics and people who would understand these academics. He does not go as far as Immanuel Kant in Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics and say that if you do not understand him that the subject is too advanced for you and you should give up on political philosophy. Nevertheless, it should be stated somewhere that if you cannot grasp his ideas, you need to read the source texts in order to gain that foundational knowledge. Of these foundational texts, John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice may be the most important. I personally have only read excerpts. This made part 2, which addresses Rawls’s book directly, significantly more difficult to appreciate.The book receives four out of five stars because readability is crucially important. While most of his targeted audience would understand his prose, this does not mean that he could not attempt to make the writing more consumable by more people. Every writer must make it their mission to have the widest possible audience, and he did not.

⭐I agree with the technical arguments in this book. Nozick’s arguments are brilliant and logically unassailable but they are dangerously utopian. The minimal state, while it may fall short of philosophical consistency, must provide more than Hobbsian security. My sense is that it must guarantee some basic standards and guarantees while remaining neutral and interfering as little as possible. It must, however, go beyond Nozick’s utopian gatekeeper for a volunteering universe.

⭐This is my first review so I’ll try to make it short. Nozick’s book is essentially divided into two interchangeable parts: 1) His story about how governments appear out of a stateless society; 2) His complementary considerations on political principles.The first part is not that good – principled people who do not violate the rights of others create governments by an “Invisible hand process” – Remember that this must be compared with other philosophical theories regarding the appearance of government (Rawls’ veil of ignorance or Dworkin’s clamshells which are equally bad our even worse philosophical explanations).The second part is more interesting and thought provoking. Nozick attacks the notion of redistributive justice, equality of opportunity and democracy itself. Even if you disagree with him it is important to examine and think about his arguments.There are two ways you can interpret this book: If you believe the world to be a constant battle for ideological supremacy then this was clearly a victory for the “enemy”, if on the other hand you like moral and political philosophy for its own sake than the book will surprise, shock and entertain you.

⭐Arrived in good condition, looking forward to reading it over the summer

⭐well written

⭐Given as present

⭐Excellent

Keywords

Free Download Anarchy, State, and Utopia in PDF format
Anarchy, State, and Utopia PDF Free Download
Download Anarchy, State, and Utopia 2013 PDF Free
Anarchy, State, and Utopia 2013 PDF Free Download
Download Anarchy, State, and Utopia PDF
Free Download Ebook Anarchy, State, and Utopia