I am reblogging part 7 (see below) of my review of Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” (ASU). Here, we proceed into the last section of Chapter 2 of ASU. Before proceeding, however, let’s recall two of Nozick’s previous conjectures — that “protection associations” will emerge in a state of nature and that these protection rackets will end up carving up their own exclusive zones, with a single dominant group selling protection in each territory. In the last part of Chapter 2, Nozick asks whether these dominant groups can be classified as “states” (or proto-states) or whether they are just extra-legal protection rackets?
Either way, I take objection to Nozick’s entire approach to the state of nature. Why? Because Nozick paints a picture of spontaneously-emerging and competitive protection rackets, but how can such a market exist in a state of nature, or as I wrote in my original post below: “… how can there be a market without some meta-protection agency to enforce the contracts made between individual buyers and sellers of protection? Instead of providing an answer to these fundamental questions, Nozick simply assumes them away. Like a good economist, he simply assumes into existence a perfect world of zero transaction costs and perfect enforcement of contracts, but a good economist might make a bad philosopher.”
Note: I will begin reviewing Chapter 3 of “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” on Monday (11/22).
Nozick concludes Chapter 2 (pp. 22-25) of Anarchy, State, and Utopia with a hybrid definitional-theoretical question: Is the dominant protection association a state? That is, does the postulated dominant protective association (postulated by Nozick) rise to level of a minimal or proto-state, or is such a private group just a protection racket? (Recall that, according to Nozick, a number of protection rackets will emerge in a state of nature and that these protection groups will end up carving up their own exclusive zones, with a single dominant group selling protection in each territory.) For his part, Nozick defines the state in terms of monopoly (p. 23): “A state claims a monopoly on deciding who may use force when; … furthermore it [the state] claims the right to punish all those who violate its claimed monopoly.” With this definition in mind, he then proceeds to distinguish private protection rackets from states…
View original post 363 more words