| ANARCHY, | STATE,AND| | UTOPIA ROBERT NOZICK | SLACK WetLMani quedo Lan Kinet Frain f he S196 p22. adi pernon Pee a agent Chis Ne ae. ‘SEL Ged. thebang eon Uy Pea ma Se heen micro ote 194 Bas Bsn ra 19818 i a plhcicn tengo ea niente, ‘py am aby ma crn mc meg lg oer ttn ny) Ineo Pato, Co CONTENTS Prcice Acknowledgmenes PART I Stateof-Nature Theory, or How te Back into a State without Really Trying 1. Why Stateof Naruse Theor? aruarony wou ion 6 2. The State of Nature ‘bvisnunsun exmananiont iB 3. Moral Conseranes and the State4 5 6 2 Prohibition, Compensation, and Risk 4 Tevev rine 38 ronment RESETS OF EXCIANGE 63 Fear so monrron 63 The Seae 88 omer a sroceounat cits 96 core sit Further Considerations on the Argument for the Sete 120 PART II Beyond the Mivimal State? Distributive Justice 149 8. Equality, Envy, Exploitation, Bee 22 Notusraar sxowncr a6 Pacromorr Navi aur ven nr ATECTS YOU 68 Demoktesis 6 PART IIT Unpia A Faamework for Usopis atNox Bibliogsapy Index Contents 335 333, 36 PARE AGE,expounded, a forthe fact that I prodace reasons co support chi positon My earlier reluctance isnot present in eis volume, because it has dsappeated, Overtime, have geow accustomed f che views ae their consequent, ad now sce the poli ream ehvough them, (Should I say chat chey enable me t0 sce through the po livia realm) Since many of the people who take a similar posi tion are narrow and righ and filled, paradosically, with resent- iment at other ficer ways of being. my now having. natura ‘responses which fi che theory puts me ia some bad company. do fot welcome the fae that most people know and respec disagree ‘with me, having outgrown the not wholly admicable pleasure of Tentating or dambfounding people by producing stone reasons ro suppor potions they dike or even dest Trerite in the mode of much contemporary philosophical work in epistemology of metaphysics: there are elaborate arguments, ‘sims ebuted by unlikely coustereamples, surprising hess, purzles, abstract structural condicions, challenges to fd another ‘theory which 6ts a specified range of cases, sailing conclusions, tnd 30 on. Though chit makes for intellects! incerest and excite {neat (hope), some may fel tha che euth abou ehis and polit ial philosophy is oo serious aad important tobe obtained by such flashy” rook. Nevertheless, it may be chat corecees i ethics is ot found in whit we naturally think ‘A codification of the received view or an explication of accepted principles ned not use elaborate argument. Ie choughe co be an bjecion co other views merely #0 poine out that chey cone ‘vith the view which readers wish anyway co acept. But a view Which dfs ffom che reade cannot argue for isl merely by pointing out that che recived view conflicts with i? stead, it trl have co subject the recived view vo the greatest inelecual Testing and sain, via councerargoments, sratiny of i presup Prstins, and presentation of 2 range of possible situations where ‘ea it proponents are uncomfortable with its consequent. ven the reader unconvinced by my arguments should fad tha, Jn the proces of maintaining and supporting his view, be has cla ied and deepened it. Moreover, 1 like co thik, intellectual hon ‘sty demande that, occasionally a& lest, we go Out of our way to onftone strong arguments opposed ro our views. How ele are we Pre a to proece ourselves from continuing in eroe? Te seems only fir « remind the reader that inellecual honesty has its dangers a: rents read perhaps a rst n cious fascination may come t ce ince and evento seem natural anc intuitive Only the refit listen guarantees one against Being ensnared by the truth “The conents ofthis volume are te paccular arguments til, can indicate farther what ito come. Since I begin with 4 srong formulation of individual rights. 1 wear seriously che anarchist finished presentations, concceures, open questions and problems, leads, side connections, a well at mainline of argument. There is rom for words on subjects other than lst woes Indeed, the usual manner of presenting philosophical work puz- sles ine. Works of philosophy are writen as though their authors believe chem to be the absolutely final word on heir subject. Buc its nos surely, that cach philosopher chinks ehat be nally chan God, has fund the eth and bus an inpeegrable fortes aroun ie. We ae all acaaly much more modest than that. For good reason. Having chought long and hard about che view he pro- poses a philosopher has a retonably good idex about ics weak pint; the places where goeat intelleccual weigh ir placed upon Something. perhaps ron fragile to bear i, che places where the bnraselling of che view might begin, che unprobed assumptions he feels uneasy about. Pisce i ‘One foem of philosophical active fel ike pushing and shov ing things 0 fi into some fixed perimeter of specified shape, All those things ae lying ou there, and they must bef in. You push and shove the material into the rigid area getting # int. the boundary on one sie, and i bulges out on another, You run around and pees in the protruding bulge, producing yet another Jin another place. So you push and shove and clip off omnes from fhe things so chey'l i and you press in until finally almost every thing sits unseably more or les there; what doesnt gets heaved Jar aay 50 tha it won't be noticed. (OF course, i not all that ‘rue. There's also the coaxing and cajoling. And the body Ea- [lish.) Quickly, you find an angle fom which i loks like an exact fi and take snapshor; at 2 ft shutter speed Before something ‘else bulges cut too noticeably. Then, back eo the darkroom 0 touch up the fens, eps, and tears ia the fibeic of ee perimeter. All that remains i o publish the photograph asa repeesentaion| of exactly how things are, and t0 noe how nothing fe properly ineo any other shape. 'No philosopher says: “There's whete I steed, here's where 1 ended up; the major weakness in my work is that I went from there to hee; in particular, here are che most notable distortions pushings, shovings, mauliags. gougings, sretchings, and chip pings that I committed dung the eps oe eo mention the things thrown away and ignored, and all chose avercings of gaze ‘The reticence of philosophers about the weakneses hey per ceive in thie own views 3 aot, I think, simply a question of philosophical honesty and itepeity though ies that or a¢ lease becomes that when brought to consciousness. The ecient i on ected with philosophers purposes ia formulating viens. Why do they seve force everything ineo that one feed perimeter? Why roe another perimeter, o, more radially. why aot lave cings wwhete they are? What does having everything within a perimeter sh for us? Why do we want ie 30? (What does it shield fom?) From these deep (and frightening) questions, I hope aot eo be abe co manage to avert my gaze in ture work However, my reason for mentioning these issues here is a0 that [el they presi more stongly #0 cis work chan to ether pile sophical writings. What 1 say inthis book i, I think, corse ‘This is noe my way of taking i back. Rather, I propose to give ie