What would Nozick say?

Updated on 5/15 (9:53 AM). How about: “Individuals (even ‘non-essential’ ones) have rights!” In preparation for my upcoming scholarly debate with my colleague and friend Ilya Somin, I have made significant revisions to my property-rights paper, available here (via SSRN), and which is now titled “A Nozickian or natural rights approach to the coronavirus pandemic.” Here is the introduction to my revised paper (references omitted):

In response to the current coronavirus pandemic, State governors all across the United States have issued a series of unprecedented and compulsory economic suppression orders, commonly referred to as “lockdown,” “stay-at-home,” or “shelter-in-place” orders. Broadly speaking, these orders require all “non-essential” businesses to close their doors and prohibit their employees from leaving their homes to work. But do these business lockdowns, however labelled, constitute constitutional “takings” under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

This is not just a legal question, but also a moral and political one. Instead of waiting for the courts to decide whether shutdown orders are takings under the Constitution, this white paper will offer a Nozickian approach to the pandemic. Simply put, beginning today, local, State, and federal levels of government should start operating at once under the assumption that such orders are constitutional takings. The dire economic consequences resulting from the ad hoc patchwork of coronavirus shutdown orders are too severe and too urgent to leave to the courts.

Following this introduction, Part 2 of the paper will present a Nozickian or natural rights reading of the takings clause. Next, Part 3 will review existing case law and offer the best possible legal argument for why shutdown orders are constitutional takings, while Part 4 will discuss a recent takings case involving a shutdown order in Pennsylvania. Part 5 will then explore the public policy implications of lockdown orders from a Nozickian perspective. To do this, Part 5 will pose the following question: what is the morally optimal level of public theft in the coronavirus age? Lastly, Part 6, in the spirit of Robert Nozick, concludes with a simple thought experiment

Screen Shot 2020-05-13 at 5.59.15 PM

Two cheers for Robert Nozick!

About F. E. Guerra-Pujol

When I’m not blogging, I am a business law professor at the University of Central Florida.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to What would Nozick say?

  1. Nice work!! Speaking of your debate is the Federalist Society by any chance recording it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s