Part 35 of my epic review of Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” which covers the fourth subsection of Chapter 6 (pp. 133-137) and which I am reblogging below, identifies an internal contradiction in Nozick’s theory of the state of nature.
Unwittingly, Nozick contradicts himself and refutes his own theory of the state in the fourth subsection of Chapter 6 (pp. 133-137)! Recall Nozick’s previous claims from Chapter 5 of Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In case your memory needs some refreshing, we will break down his main claims here:
- That a territory’s dominant protection association will eventually become a state or state-like entity;
- That the dominant protection agency in each territory will prohibit non-clients from enforcing their rights in their dealings with the clients of the protection agency;
- That the dominant protection agency will compensate these non-clients for this violation of their rights;
- That this compensation will be in the form of in kind protection services;
- That this process from protection agency to state will occur without anyone’s natural rights being violated, since non-clients will receive compensation.
Now, however, in the fourth subsection of Chapter 6, Nozick will not only…
View original post 156 more words