Compare And Contrast Hayek And Nozick

In American society, freedom and government go hand-in-hand. Whether through coercion or by their own accord, Americans agree to limit their freedom in exchange for the protection and order provided by the government. While Hayek argues for spontaneous order, the natural process by which society comes together, Nozick believes in the idea of minimal and ultraminimal states in which the government’s role is to protect the rights of a society. Hayek distinguishes between laws and commands in that laws allow the person being acted upon to make their own decision, while commands take away that freedom and give it to the issuer. By these definitions, commands are solely used to oppress certain people and give power to others. In the presence of
The concepts assume that people will submit to the formation of laws that take away various parts of their freedom in order to protect everyone’s rights in the society. Stealing, for example, takes away a person’s freedom to take whatever they want, but it enforces the liberties of the victim by letting them keep what they rightfully own. In certain circumstances, then, not everyone is equally free. In the example more freedom is given to the victim because their rights are more protected. Adults also have more freedom than children. Adults, for instance, drive and vote while kids cannot. Some argue, however, that each person must go through these younger stages of life in which some rights are restricted, making the laws just. Even with the flaws of the two concepts people agree to live in a society structured upon them. A balance between freedom and order is what every society aspires to achieve. Hayek proves that order can form with laws instead of commands and Nozick demonstrates how using laws to protect individual rights forms a peaceful society. When these concepts are combined, society’s goals are achieved with relatively few