Anarchy, State, and Utopia

Excellent analysis on the morally appropriate organization of a state from many angles. The reasoning is complex at times and the narrative is not always easy to follow, but the conclusions are well thought out and compelling.Definitely recommended for everyone interested in political philosophy no matter what your current opinions are on the subject. The book is not just presenting one “truth”, but explores a number of alternative views with a conclusion well grounded in the arguments presented. I don’t think you need to agree with the author’s conclusions, at least I enjoyed and was impressed by the quality of the argumentation as such.

You can get a wonderful overview of the book on Wikipedia. So, rather than try to provide such an overview here, let me offer a few comments on what reading along these lines has meant to me.Nozick's book is an outstanding logical development, building a philosophical framework upon a presuppositional base of preeminence of individual rights. I've read it cover-to-cover with interest and profit. This book provides an intellectual base to the school of Libertarianism that so attracts people in Ayn Rand's prose. Notably, I have read late-in-life interviews with Nozick in which he said that he became less libertarian as he got older.This book really should be read in conjunction with John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," which I have not yet finished cover-to-cover due to its length and unavailability as an audiobook. After reading the most famous parts in Rawls book, I did finish a few good summaries and commentaries on the "Theory of Justice." Rawls and Nozick were contemporaries in the Philosophy Department at Harvard, and are leading minds on the left and right, respectively, of the American philosophical spectrum.The Nozick logic leads to a world of perfect individual rights. In this world, charity becomes dependent on the free will of individuals who choose to grant charity. In this world, the more harsh aspects of Social Darwinism become morally permissible. However, the economist's problem of Moral Hazard (the freeloader problem) is completely solved. One who holds individual rights to be preeminent sees this Nozick system as perfectly satisfying the Golden Rule (aka principle of reciprocity), because at the formation of the social contract, all agree to accept individual rights as preeminent, thus "doing unto others as we would have them do to us."The Rawls logic stems from applying the Golden Rule prior to developing the social contract behind a "veil of ignorance," in which founders/citizens do not yet know the circumstances and advantages of their birth. While complete individual rights may have been present while drawing up the social contract "behind the veil of ignorance," once out in society a measure of compassion and charity becomes almost obligatory, due to agreements made behind the veil of ignorance. In this world, the more harsh aspects of Social Darwinism will not be allowed by the social contract. However, this world is more susceptible to economist's problem of Moral Hazard (the freeloader problem) than Nozick's world.Interestingly, both the Nozick and Rawls approach can be reconciled with both the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative, as can Ayn Rand's thesis (and I've read papers by philosopher graduate students and Ph.D graduates doing so).My bottom line? If men and women were gods and goddesses, either of these systems could make a happy world. The problem is that we are not.

A very challenging work of philosophy. Not an easy read, but a very rewarding one; Robert Nozick clearly and exhaustively lays out the groundwork for a truly ethical and consistent analysis of politics and government. The book arrived promptly and was exactly as advertised. Excellent service.

Nozick's work has long been regarded as a staple of political philosophy, and with good reason. His prose is engaging, and his logic compelling. Nozick is an excellent and insightful critic of the state; between just the two of them, his Wilt Chamberlain and Tale of a Slave illustrations roundly demolish pretty much all arguments for a central state, but he goes into far more depth as well.The final section -- Utopia -- is rather interesting, as Nozick takes a somewhat eclectic viewpoint, arguing that utopia is the journey and not the destination. He spends little time on existing utopian theory, instead pointing out (rightly) the flaws common to virtually all of it, and then discussing an alternative way of considering the idea.Where Nozick is weakest is his treatment of the alleged necessity of the minimal state; despite thinking he has answered the objections of individualist anarchists, he has at best dodged them. He finishes his treatment of the subject with an entire chapter full of silly utilitarianism, theorising about means of maximising total utils without ever explaining what a util is or how one could possibly measure it, and declares the matter settled. Yet never does he explain what mechanism actually makes it okay to put a gun to somebody's head and extract revenue; perhaps that makes the utils come out.Overall, this is a highly engaging book, and a must-read for any serious student of political philosophy.

Best read in conjunction with John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," Nozick's book is a classic of political thought. He advances a simple, elegant, and difficult-to-argue-with libertarianism, one that forms a foundation for libertarian thinking today. Whether or not you agree with him, this is essential reading for anyone trying to understand libertarian philosophy today.

Nozick's book is difficult to read, but it is worth the effort. One does not read AS&U from front to back. One must read, reread, reflect, and reread again to understand the ideas offered. People who have not read and understood the ideas of Nozick and his colleague John Rawls really should not bother with writing about the political economy, for they have nothing useful or interesting to say.

Very interesting read for anyone interested in a very logic-chain based political science/philosophy argument. Keep in mind that it's very dense and takes a very close read to grasp, but it doesn't waste words and is concise in its arguments. The classic read for a libertarian.

I was introduced to Nozick's libertarianism in a college introduction to philosophy course. I found libertarianism to be a very interesting political perspective. I wish this was sold as a pdf though.

Puntual.

Sehr gut erlätert, wie ein liberaler Staat und eine liberale Gesellschaft aussehen kann. Grundrechte des Individuums sthen im Mittelpunkt. rechte des Staates können nur abgeleitet sein.

Tanti gli spunti brillanti, nonostante gli anni passati.E, prima ancora degli spunti, quel che resta (e sempre resterà) del libro è il suo valore letterario.

If you want to discuss the theoretical foundations of the state, it is a good book. The reading will be more fruitful for readers who have already read the classical texts on social contract (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau). It will be perfect for readers who had read Theory of Justice by John Rawls.

Brilliant writer. Fascinating ideas. Compelling philosophy.Just wouldn't purchase anything from PBC Distributors. Had a terrible experience.