Who Is Nozick's Rule?
Introduction
Robert Nozick gained fame as a leading American philosopher thanks to the success of his 1974 book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The books endeavours to further explore the anti-consequentialist elements that have been discussed by John Rawls in his book, A Theory of Justice. Nozick has identified the best tool with which to gauge state action is its respect for individual rights. Accordingly, a minimal state can be the only legitimate state given that its activities are limited to protecting an individual's rights of liberty, life, contract, and property. Nozick endeavours to refute the anarchist's claim by way of demonstrating how a minimal state might come about without infringing on individual rights. Nozick has also endeavoured
to restore interest in the idea that individual rights are a key element of the political theory by considering the political philosophy of libertarianism. The premise of this essay is to argue that Nozick’s minimal state is unjust by exploring counter-arguments to it, such as by Rawls.
Robert Nozick gained fame as a leading American philosopher thanks to the success of his 1974 book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The books endeavours to further explore the anti-consequentialist elements that have been discussed by John Rawls in his book, A Theory of Justice. Nozick has identified the best tool with which to gauge state action is its respect for individual rights. Accordingly, a minimal state can be the only legitimate state given that its activities are limited to protecting an individual's rights of liberty, life, contract, and property. Nozick endeavours to refute the anarchist's claim by way of demonstrating how a minimal state might come about without infringing on individual rights. Nozick has also endeavoured
to restore interest in the idea that individual rights are a key element of the political theory by considering the political philosophy of libertarianism. The premise of this essay is to argue that Nozick’s minimal state is unjust by exploring counter-arguments to it, such as by Rawls.