[W]hat are the achievements of Anarchy, State, and Utopia? [Robert] Nozick has very few disciples in academic political philosophy, yet almost every book published on justice, property, or political obligation in the last [sic] decade and a half contains discussions of, or at least references to, his work. With [John] Rawls, Nozick continues to dominate political philosophy. But why should this be so, if so few philosophers agree with what he has to say?
The first virtue of Anarchy, State, and Utopia is that it forcefully presents a position in political philosophy which is striking, powerful, uncompromising, and original at least in so far as such a view had not been presented to the mainstream of academic philosophy for a century, and never with such vigour. But it is not simply the views presented which have made such an impact, but the manner in which they are presented. The book bristles with arguments of great ingenuity, alarming and bizarre counterexamples to comfortable views, presented with wit, and sometimes, corn. Political philosophy had not been done like this before, and has rarely been so abstract and so clever. Also it is rare that a single work has managed to challenge so many received views. Finally, Anarchy, State, and Utopia attracts attention because it represents an extreme position. Thus it marks out one of the boundaries of political philosophy and so receives attention from all those who wish to stop short.
(Jonathan Wolff, Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State, Key Contemporary Thinkers [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991], 139)
Note from KBJ: There is much to quibble with in these two paragraphs. Wolff says that "Political philosophy had not been done like this before." Wrong. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was at least as provocative and ingenious as Nozick, and probably far more so. Surely Wolff has read Leviathan (1651), which is "striking, powerful, uncompromising, and original"! As for libertarianism being "an extreme position," it's not as extreme as anarchism, which has always had (and continues to have) its adherents. Indeed, Nozick devoted a substantial part of his book to finding fault with anarchism. Only someone on the far left could think that Nozick is an extremist. His views are actually in keeping with the American tradition of limited government and individual rights.
