Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[DeeElf]

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Robert Nozick

Refuting the Anarchist

It might be thought that given Nozick’s premises, no state at all, minimal or otherwise, could be justified, that full-blown anarchism is what really follows from the notion of self-ownership. For the activities of even a minimal state would need to be funded via taxation. Wouldn’t this taxation also amount to forced labor and partial slavery? Nozick thinks not. Indeed, in his view it turns out that even if an anarchistic society existed, not only could a minimal state nevertheless arise out of it in a way that violates no one’s self-ownership rights, in fact such a state would, morally speaking, have to come into existence.

Suppose there is a certain geographical area in which no state exists, and everyone must protect his own rights to life, liberty, and property, without relying on a government and its police and military to do so. Given that doing so would be costly, difficult, and time-consuming, people would, Nozick says, inevitably band together to form voluntary protection associations, agreeing to take turns standing watch over each others’ property, to decide collectively how to punish rights-violators, and so forth. Eventually some members of this anarchistic community would decide to go into the protection business full-time, instituting a private firm that would offer protection services to members of the community in exchange for a fee. Other members of the community might start competing firms, and a free market would develop in protection services.

Inevitably, Nozick argues, this process will (via a kind of “invisible hand” mechanism of the sort discussed by economists) give rise to either a single dominant firm or a dominant confederation of firms. For most people will surely judge that where protection of their lives and property is concerned, nothing short of the biggest and most powerful provider of such protection will do, so that they will flock to whatever firm is perceived as such; and the “snowball” effect this will create will ensure that that firm ends up with an overwhelming share of the market. Even if multiple large firms come into being, however, they are likely to form a kind of single dominant association of firms. For there will be occasions when the clients of different firms come into conflict with one another, one client accusing the other of violating his rights, the other insisting on his innocence. Firms could go to war over the claims of their respective clients, but this would be costly, especially if (as is likely) such conflicts between clients became frequent. More feasible would be an agreement between firms to abide by certain common rules for adjudicating disputes between clients and to go along with the decisions of arbitrators retained by the firms to interpret these rules – to institute, that is, a common quasi-legal system of sorts. With the advent of such a dominant protection agency (or confederation of agencies) – an organization comprised essentially of analogues of police and military forces and courts of law – our anarchistic society will obviously have gone a long way toward evolving a state, though strictly speaking, this agency is still a private firm rather than a government.

How will the dominant protection agency deal with independents – those (relatively few) individuals who retain no protection firm and insist on defending their rights themselves – who attempt to mete out justice to those of its clients they accuse of rights violations? Will it allow them to try and punish its clients as they see fit? Nozick argues that the dominant agency will not allow this and, morally speaking, must not. For the agency was hired to protect its clients’ rights, and that includes a right not to be arrested, tried, or punished unjustly or, where one really is guilty of a rights violation, to be punished more harshly than one deserves. Of course, its clients might really be guilty; but the point is, so long as the dominant agency doesn’t itself know that they are, it cannot allow them to be punished. The dominant agency must, accordingly, generally prohibit independents from defending their own rights against its clients; it must take upon itself the exclusive right to decide which of its clients is worthy of punishment, and what sort of punishment that ought to be.

In doing so, however, it has taken on one of the defining features of a state, namely, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. It has become what Nozick calls an “ultra-minimal state.” In doing so, however, the dominant agency seems to have jeopardized the rights of independents – for though it has (rightly) prohibited those independents from exacting justice on its own clients, lest they inflict unjust punishments, it has thereby also left them unable to defend their own rights. To avoid committing an injustice against independents, then, the dominant agency or ultra-minimal state must compensate them for this – it must, that is, defend their rights for them by providing them the very protection services it affords its own clients. It can, Nozick says, legitimately charge them for this protection, but only the amount that they would have spent anyway in defending themselves. The end result of this process, though, is that the ultra-minimal state has taken on another feature of a state, namely the provision of protection to everyone within its borders. Moreover, in charging everyone for this protection it engages, in effect, in a kind of taxation (though this taxation – and only this taxation – does not violate self-ownership rights, because the original clients of the agency pay voluntarily, while the later, formerly independent, clients are charged only an amount they would have spent anyway for protection). The ultra-minimal state has thus become a full-fledged minimal state.

A minimal state would thus inevitably arise out of an originally anarchic society, given both practical circumstances and the moral requirements – concerning the prohibition of potentially rights-violating self-defense and compensation for this prohibition – binding on any agency acting to enforce the rights of others. And it would do so in a way that violates no one’s rights of self-ownership. So the anarchist can have no principled objection to it.

Nozick’s conception of the origins of the state is reminiscent of the social contract tradition in political thought represented by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and, in contemporary thought, Rawls. For insofar as the state arises out of a process that begins with the voluntary retention by individuals of the services of an agency that will inevitably take on the features of a state, it can be seen to be the result of a kind of contract. The details of the state-originating process in Nozick’s account are very different from those of other social contract accounts, however; and, most importantly, for Nozick, unlike other social contract theorists, individual rights do not result from, but exist prior to, any social contract, and put severe constraints on the shape such a contract can take. Furthermore, the parties to the contract in Nozick’s conception are to be imagined very much on the model of human beings as we know them in “real life,” rather than along the lines of the highly abstractly conceived rational agents deliberating behind a “veil of ignorance” in Rawls’s “original position” thought experiment.

[Fleetfootphil]

Scott: having read your early posts on this thread, I fear I may have underestimated you.

[Dlaw]

For years - decades - I was a dedicated Anarcho-Syndicalist. But then I got interested in the workings of finance and government and I realized that when you make systems large, there has to be a paradigm shift towards governance.

Typically, anarchists are very moralistic people. They self-govern well so they don't see a need for outside government. Unfortunately, their worldview is typically too small - or they are projecting what works on a small scale onto a huge scale without realizing there are emergent factors that come up.

The typical libertarian anarchist is individualistic - well, "bossy" is usually a better word. The flaw in their thinking should be obvious from the start. They imagine ruling the world, but they don't generally consider the fantastic degree of cooperation it took for the world to evolve to such a degree that an individualist can actually imagine himself surviving. The Internet and computer technology have made this even worse. Because a person who knows how to code can imagine writing the vast amount of code on which he depends, he takes it for granted. Computer technology has also made cooperation more passive, so that an individual can modify a code base or document and then forget about it, again, taking for granted that others will clean up any messes he might have left. Computer science has created a kind of market bubble in individualism and it will take a while before people realize that collaboration is where the productivity lies.

Collaboration needs rules - pretty strict rules, in fact.

The typical Collectivist Anarchist (Anarcho-Syndicalist, Hippie, Enviro-Anarchist) typically likes to cooperate (as long as the vibe is right) and has a gentler outlook - doesn't like to hassle people, believes in their good nature. What that person typically forgets is that there is conflict inherent in collaboration and the more collaboration, the more conflict. Conflict has to be resolved actively and that leads to power relationships. Power relationships need not have any deeper meaning. They don't mean that anybody is better than anybody else, but they do mean that people have different jobs to do. Individualists cause a lot of trouble, but individual wants and ambitions are inevitable and can inspire a group to accomplish more. Not everybody has a lot of ambition and those who do have something important to share - the trick is getting them to share it.

Which brings me to why anarchism doesn't work. Large systems are, I think, typically governed best with a certain amount of arbitrariness. When you meet people whose job it is to govern, you realize how differently they see the world. They meet with scores of people a day and listen to them carefully and know that there are relatively few opportunities to actually change the rules. Politics move more slowly and MUST be more arbitrary than systems than we would all like because politics has a homeostatic characteristic. People mostly cooperate. Politics and governance keep them in bounds, that's all. The chances to discipline or inspire a large group of people are few and they never come the way you would want them. You have to take advantage of moments when people are open to change because most of the time they are too busy just getting along.

Civilization is about cooperation and cooperation needs referees and politicians.

Finally, I'd like to note that there's another kind of anarchism commonly promoted, which is the radical "free market" b.s. that people like "whitetrshsoldier" throw around so confidently and ignorantly.

Capitalist markets are free just like casinos are free - everybody can play as long as the players always loose and the House always wins. People like "whitetrshsoldier" are typically too blinded by ego and insecurity to realize they are NOT the House and they are never going to be. Our system is very hard on people who want to maintain their self-respect because it treats everyone like a chump and a sucker. When your self-respect is threatened, you can opt out, you can convince yourself that the House is right and good (mainly because you desperately want the House to give you a job) or you can challenge the dominance of the House.

Challenging the House is not an easy life and not terribly rewarding so people can be forgiven if they are un-eager to do it. But we all have to realize how the capitalist system works and for whom - the owners.

Note a recent book by Thomas Piketty which shows that the way we look at Capitalism was formed during a very unusual period in capitalism when the wealth of the wealthiest drastically decreased due to two world wars, a depression and imposition of progressive income tax structures and a rise in transfer payments to poor people. Except during this period, the rich typically accumulated wealth and income faster than the rate of growth, meaning that inequality tends to grow over time until it becomes politically and economically unsustainable. In other words, the House odds are too rich, the income from the casino starts to fall and casinos start to close (the economy gets smaller or grows more slowly).

Whitetrshssoldier may or may not know that his attitudes are predicated on the "Kuznets Curve" which was an economic conclusion based on economic data from this anomalous period during which the rich actually got poorer. Workers clearly do not have a choice as to whether or not to add to the profits of the wealthy. It's the only game in town. Small businesses are dominated by rich people, just as all businesses are and, all things being equal, the competitor with more capital is simple going to win. That's just inescapable math and the rest is b.s..

In the future, government will become much, much more necessary, not less. Right now we are already in a place where huge numbers of people are employed in business who add no value. They can and will be got rid of. Meanwhile, the need for public infrastructure has never been greater. Look at the way the U.S. is falling behind on Internet speeds. We depend on a private system to deliver Internet and it's failing relative to systems with large-scale public investment. We have failed to learn the lesson from the (mostly public) development of our highway system relative to the haphazard (mostly private) development of rail in America.

[Theophane]

An anarchist society is one without chaos. It is a society in which people neither attack each other nor try to dominate each other. It is a society where people respect each other's freedom.

Such a society cannot exist with real human beings. Anarchy, archism, makes no difference which word is used.

-- Updated March 17th, 2014, 10:35 am to add the following --

I'm sorry, but human nature is the worst example that people try to use to dismiss systems like Anarchism and Communism (which are very closely related).

If that is what you think, you need to learn more about human nature and the evil that men do.

[ZenPhilosopher]

1. Is anarchism chaos? 2. How is the chaos caused by anarchism different from the chaos found in any other society? 3. Who here agrees with the philosophy of anarchism? 4. Who doesn't? 5. Why? Please use good arguments not just " ooh cause its stupid and we need government?

In order: 1. No. 2. It isn't. 3. I agree (to a point). 4. I do (to a point). 5. Anarchy in and of itself is not necessarily chaotic. There can be doctrine in "disorder" as well as order. In fact, what is considered "disorder" in one context can be considered order in another. Anarchy is a revolt against "the norm". This revolution has the potential to yield new/different paradigms, and what's wrong with that?

[Theophane]

What is the doctrine of disorder but disorder itself, for its own sake?

Anarchy in and of itself is not necessarily chaotic

Be honest! Anarchy that does not seek after chaos is not anarchy. The idea of anarchistic rule-following and establishment-defending is absurd.

[Belinda]

Is anarchism chaos? How is the chaos caused by anarchism different from the chaos found in any other society? Who here agrees with the philosophy of anarchism? Who doesn't? Why? Please use good arguments not just " ooh cause its stupid and we need government?

While total anarchy would be ideal in an ideal world, we need the inertial rule of law and order because few people are capable of governing themselves and their practical and ethical decisions.

[Theophane]

The rule of law keeps people in line, for the most part.

[Wayne92587]

One must be Amoral, must deviate from the Norm to be a True Anarchist; the Law of choice of the Anarchist is to bring the Chaos to Order being,”the Rule of Law” allowing for the separation of Church and State. (The Separation of Church and State having nothing to do with the State having control over the Church, Religious Freedoms).

The purpose of the Rule of Law being to prevent an, “Abomination” of God’s Passion for Boundlessness from being used to rein over the Earth.

Morality is to confining for the Anarchist; Moral Law being and abomination, being a dismal failure in its attempt to bring the Chaos to Order.

Would that I could I would destroy the Law!!

Moral Law creates, “Disorder in the Court.”

Anarchism is not against Order; the anarchist is against the Hypocrisy of Moral Law, Moral Righteousness.

The Only Good Law is No Law, is a Law that is not absolute in its findings of Guilt and Punishment, such as an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

Moral Righteousness is not Divine Law, Moral Righteousness is an Abomination of God’s Law, is an Hypocrisy.

It is the purpose of the Anarchist to destroy the “Law” the Moral Righteousness of Church Law and to replace it with “The Rule of Law.”

[David Henry9]

How do Anarchists handle violent crime?

[Theophane]

How do Anarchists handle violent crime?

With no moral order (hypocritical or otherwise), there can be no crime (violent or otherwise.)

In a pitch-dark room, there are no shadows.

[David Henry9]

How do Anarchists handle violent crime?

With no moral order (hypocritical or otherwise), there can be no crime (violent or otherwise.)

In a pitch-dark room, there are no shadows.

Was that meant to be funny? Depending on the brand of anarchist, they claim anarchy is the absence of rulers not rules.

[Wayne92587]

David Henry9

The separation of Church and State allows the Rule Law to deal with vilence.

The rejection of Moral Rightesnes does no preclude the use of law to bring the Chaos to Order.

[David Henry9]

Who enforces "the rule of law"?

-- Updated November 24th, 2014, 4:59 am to add the following --

If we knew for certain that peaceful/loving parenting{Molyneux} would ensure 100% moral compliance, then of course we could eliminate police, and presumably be left with various dispute resolution organizations{DRO's} that would handle business transactions etc, however, even some of those might need enforcing, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how we eliminate all rulers/enforcers.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Who enforces "the rule of law"?

-- Updated November 24th, 2014, 4:59 am to add the following --

If we knew for certain that peaceful/loving parenting{Molyneux} would ensure 100% moral compliance, then of course we could eliminate police, and presumably be left with various dispute resolution organizations{DRO's} that would handle business transactions etc, however, even some of those might need enforcing, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how we eliminate all rulers/enforcers.

If people were all so nice ("100% more compliance") because of good parenting or whatever, then we could trust people to be police and rulers. The problem with archism is that people are not so nice. They will abuse that power.

Arguing that people are too mean or naughty or nasty or whatever to to be free is putting the cart in front of the horse. If they are so mean and naughty, then universal freedom is needed to limit their power.