Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state,
limited, to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft,
fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified, but any more
extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do
certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is
inspiring as well as right. 1
Is not the minimal state, the framework for utopia, an inspiring vision? The minimal state treats us as inviolate individuals, who may not be
used in certain ways by others as means or tools or instruments or
resources; it treats us as persons having individual right with the
dignity this constitutes. Treating us with respect by respecting our
rights, it allows us, individually or with whom we please, to choose our
life and to realize our ends and our conception of ourselves, insofar
as we can, aided by the voluntary cooperation of other individuals
possessing the same dignity. How dare any state or group of individuals do more? Or less? 2
Source:
1. Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974, Preface, p. ix
2. ibid. pg. 333
Monday, October 8, 2012
2 comments:
Reformed Seth appreciates and encourages your comments, but we do have guidelines for posting comments:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That picture of Robert Nozick makes me want to scream "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!"
ReplyDeleteLOL!
ReplyDeleteGotta love the 70s