Jonathan Wolff - Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State.

I first read Nozick as an undergraduate in 1980. At that time philosophy students usually reacted to Anarchy, State, and Utopia in one of two ways. Either they thought its conclusions so repugnant that it should not be taken seriously as political philosophy at all, or they thought its conclusions so repugnant that it was vital (but not very difficult) to show how it fails. Now, in 1990, as a teacher of philosophy, I still encounter these two reactions, but fairly often I also encounter a third: that, broadly speaking, Nozick is right.

My own initial entanglement with Nozick was slightly more complicated. Feeling a strong attraction to individual liberty, and being prepared to believe that a likely consequence of this might well be some form or other of anarchism, I had attempted some preliminary reading into anarchist theory. But I was both dissatisfied with the uncritical vagueness of anarchys defenders and annoyed by the crass, one-line dismissals of it by its opponents. So I welcomed the chance to read a book with Anarchy in its title as part of my introduction to political philosophy. However, I had taken it for granted that the anarchy referred to would be socialist, or, at the least, egalitarian, and, as I read Nozick, I became increasingly concerned. What was money doing in the state of nature? And private property rights? And free enterprise? It had not even occurred to me that anarchy could be made to yield rampant capitalism. An initial commitment to liberty seemed to lead, not to equality, as I had assumed, but to inequality. Thus I was forced, for the first time, to face the question of whether I cared more about liberty than equality. I had no firm answer to that question then, and I have no firm answer now. However, as I aim to show here, Nozick, despite his best efforts, does not, in fact, succeed in demonstrating any important inconsistency between liberty and equality. So I can, at least for the time being, put off the question.

I cannot, however, put off the questions of why it is I think Nozick is wrong, and why it is important to show that he is wrong. Fortunately, the second question, at least, has an easy answer. Nozicks views have many affinities with the defence of laissez-faire capitalism which has been part of the ruling ideology of the 1980s. It has not escaped my notice that during my entire university career both as student and teacher Margaret Thatcher has been Prime Minister of Great Britain, and ideas like those of Nozick have had, to put it mildly, a huge and destructive effect on the lives of a great many people. It is, perhaps, unlikely that showing the difficulties with those ideas will have much practical effect, yet the task is still worthwhile.

My intention has been to present my case by reason, not rhetoric. This accounts for much of the style and tone of this book. One easy way of writing about Nozick would be in the denunciatory mode of a political pamphlet, revealing outrage after outrage. I wanted to avoid that at all costs, for this is intended to be a work of political philosophy, not polemic. I have tried to set out Nozicks views as fairly as possible adding extra arguments where I can and then to show, coolly and calmly, where Nozick is mistaken. Finally, this is a book about Nozick, not about me. Although I have grappled with Nozick partly as a means towards learning the truth for myself, the point of this book is not to display my own views, but to examine Nozicks.

The opportunity to do this came when Mike Rosen suggested that I should write this book. The idea that someone should write a book on Nozick was John Thompsons. I am very grateful to them both for setting me off on this project, and for their encouragement along the way. Lively discussions with Mike, and his perceptive comments on the penultimate manuscript, have also led to many improvements. Jerry Cohen, who first introduced me to Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and convinced me of its importance, also provided immensely helpful comments on the whole manuscript, and of course, his own work on Nozick has been a major influence on mine (as it has been on so many). Others who have read the work in various stages, and from whose suggestions and criticism I have profited, include Jonathan Dick, Chris Hull, Miles Sabin, Nick Zangwill, and, especially, Simon Evnine and Elaine Collins. I would also like to thank two anonymous publishers readers for their useful suggestions, and Malcolm Budd for his help and encouragement.