In 1974, Robert Nozick, then a 36-year-old professor of philosophy at Harvard University, published Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books), which he described as "a philosophical exploration." In Part I of this book, entitled "State-of-Nature Theory, or How to Back into a State without Really Trying," Nozick argued that a minimal state is justified (i.e., "morally legitimate"). In Part II, entitled "Beyond the Minimal State?," he argued that nothing more than a minimal state is justified. In Part III, entitled "Utopia," he argued that a minimal state is "inspiring as well as right."
The audiences for the three parts of the book differ. In Part I, Nozick is trying to persuade anarchists that a minimal state is justified. Anarchists must either find fault with his arguments or abandon anarchism. In Part II, Nozick is trying to persuade proponents of an extensive state (i.e., a more-than-minimal state) that nothing more than a minimal state is justified. Proponents of an extensive state must either find fault with his arguments or abandon their view. In Part III, Nozick is trying to persuade both anarchists and proponents of an extensive state that his view, no less than theirs (or instead of theirs), is inspiring.
Most criticisms of Nozick's book, I think it is safe to say, have come from proponents of an extensive state. But not all. Today I read an essay by the anarchist Murray N. Rothbard entitled "Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State," Journal of Libertarian Studies 1 (1977): 45-57. Rothbard criticizes Nozick's argument for a minimal state. Rothbard agrees with Nozick that nothing more than a minimal state is justified. He disagrees with Nozick that a minimal state is inspiring. Only anarchy, he would say, is inspiring. If Rothbard had to rank things, he would prefer Nozick to, say, John Rawls, who defends an extensive state, for a minimal state is closer to anarchism than an extensive state is; but in this essay there is no mention of Rawls or any other proponent of an extensive state.
Every argument has an audience. The aim of the arguer is to begin with premises that the audience accepts and show that they entail a conclusion that is not already accepted. Nozick had three audiences in mind when he wrote his book. This meant that he was subjecting himself to criticism from three directions. As I say, most of the criticism has been of Part II of Nozick's book, but that is only because there are more proponents of an extensive state than there are anarchists. I find all three parts of Nozick's book interesting, but I'm particularly interested in Part II, since I'm a proponent of an extensive (i.e., more-than-minimal) state. Think of it this way. I'm pulling on Nozick from one direction, trying to get him to acknowledge that more than a minimal state is justified; Rothbard is pulling on him from the other direction, trying to get him to acknowledge that not even a minimal state is justified.
If you've read Nozick and want to read Rothbard, write to me. I'll send a PDF file of his essay. By the way, I should thank my former student Katherine for bringing Rothbard's essay to my attention. I finally found time to read it!
