| 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S Prete ail co you the doubts and worries and uncertainties as well a she belies, convictions, and arguments ‘At these puricular points in my aggumencs eansicons, a8 sumptions, and so fore, where {fee the stain, I ey’ co comment fat Katto draw the ceadr'artenton co what makes me une Tn avance, i is posible to woice sme general theoretical worries. “Tis book does nor present precise theory of the moral basis of individual rights it des noe contain a precise statement and jus tification ofa theory of retributive punishment; or a precise sate- iment ofthe principles of the xpatie chery of diseribuive ju tice i presents, Much of what 1 say ests upon or uses general Feacures that | believe such theories would have were they worked fut. F would Like ro write on these copies in te fur. 1 do, no ‘doube the resulting theory wil differ fom what I now expect it 0 bes and this would requite some modifications in the superstruc~ cre erected here. It would be foolish to expec that I shall com plete these fundamental tsks satisfactorily; as would be eo Femaiasilenc until they ate done, Pechaps this essay will stimulate others to help. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T. fist nine chapters of this enay were written dusing 1971-10972, while I wa a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Stuy in the Behavioral Sciences at Palo Alto « minimally sic: ‘ured academic institution bordering om individualist anarchy. Tam ‘ery graefl to the Center and its stall for providing an eavicon rene 50 conducive to getting things done. Chap 10 wat pre Saved ina symposium on “Usopin and Uropianism” a « mectng ofthe Eastern Divison of dhe American Philosophical Associaton jn 1969; some poins from chat delivered addess appt seated inthe other chapters. The whole manuscrpe was writen during the summer of 1973. Barbare Novick’ objections co some of the positions defended here Helped me fo sharpen my views; in addition she helped enoe- ‘mously in innumerable ocher ways. Over sever year, Ihave bene fted fiom Michael Walze’s comments, question, and counter argoments a I red out on him ideas on some topics ofthis esa. T have seeived detailed and very helpfol written comments fon the whole manusceipe writen at the Center from W. V. Quine, Derek Pui, and Gilbere Harman, on Chapeer 7 fom Joho Ramis and Frank Michelman, and oman arir drat of Part | from Alan Dershowitz. 1 also have benefited from a discustion ‘with Ronald Dworkin on how competing. protective agencies ‘ouldin'®) work, and from suggestions by Buon Dieben. Various stages of vatious porcons of this manuscripe were read and di cussed, over the years, at mectngs of the Society for Ethical and Legal Philosophy (SELF, che regelar discussions wigh ite members have been a source of inellerual stimulation and pleasure. It was 2 long conversation about six yeas ago with Murray Rothbard chat Simlaced my intezest in individualist anarchist theory. EvenPART State-of-Nature Theory, or How to Back into a State without Really TryingCHAPTER 1 Why State-of-Nature Theory? ee Seo4 Setsf Nata Thy ‘The fundamental question of polivicsl philosophy, one chat pe ‘edes questions about how the sate should be organized, is whether there should be any state at all. Why aoe have anarchy? Since anarchist theory, if tenable, undercuts the whole subject of| Delica philosophy, is appepriate to begin poiial philosophy With an examination of its major dheozetial alternative. Those who coasider anarchism not an unattractive doctrine will think it possible chat political philosophy end here aswell. Others inc tnely will avaie what isco come afterwards. Ye, as we shall se, schists and anarchists alike, chose who sping. gingerly fom the staring pone as well a cote reluctantly argued away from i, an agree that begining the subject of politi philorophy with tate- ofnaturecheory hasan exlonany purpose. Such purpose i ab- sear when epistemology i Begun with an attempe to refute the skeptic.) ‘Which nurchic situation should we investigate to answer the ‘question of why noe anarchy? Perhaps the one that would exis if ‘the actual political situation did't, while no other possible poit- cal ove did. Bue apare from the gratuitous assumption that every- fone everywhere would be inthe same nonstate boa and the eaot- ‘mous unmanageabilcy of pursuing that countericrual to arive at 4 particule situation, that situation would lack Fandameneal theo retical interest. To be sue, if cha nonstate situation were suf ficiently awful, there would be a reason co refuin fom disman- dling destoying particule state and replacing it wich none, Ie would be more promising to fcus upon «fundamental ab- sract description that would encompass all situations of intrest, including “where we would ow be if” Were this description afl enough, the sate would come ove asa prefered alternative, view as afferonately asa tip 1 the dentist, Such awful de scriptions rarely convince, and not merely because they fil co cheer. The subjecs of psychology and sociology are fr oo fece 10 suppor: generalizing so pessimistcally across all scietie and persons, especially since the argument depends upon mt making ‘ch pessimistic asumpcions about how the state operates. OF [Why Suteof Nature Theory? 5 course, people now something oF how actual tates have operated tnd they difer in thee views. Given che enotmous importance of the choice berween the state and anarchy, caution might suggest fone use the “minima” criterion, and focus upon a pessimistic e5- timate of the aonsate station: the state wold be compared with the more pesimistically described Hobbesian state of mature. But in using the minimax criterion, this Hobbesan situation should bbe compared wich the most pessimiecally decribed. possible eae, including fare ones. Sach a comparison, sutly, the worst "ate of nacure would win, Those who view the state a6 tn abo ration will noe find minimax very compelling, especially since: seems one could always bring back the state if chat came fo seem esinble. The “maximas” creron, on the other hand, would procecd om che most optimistic sstumpeions about how ehings ould work out—Godwin, if you like ehae sore of thing. Bue Iimprudent opeimism also lacks conviction. Indeed, no proposed decision criterion for choice under uncertainty caries conviction here, nor doer maximizing expected ity on the bass of such Feil probabilities. “More othe point, especialy fo deciding what gals one shoul fry #0 achieve, would be co focus upon a nonstate siuation in which people generally satisfy moral consraints and generally act 1 they ovghe. Soch an asrumpeion i nt wildly opeimistic: i dos rot assume that all people act exactly as they should. Yee this stateofmacue situation isthe best anarchic scution one eason- Aly could hope for. Hence investigating ie nature and defect is of frucial importance to deciding whether there should be 4 sate rather than anarchy. If one could show tha che stare would be so- pete even eo this most fivored situation of anarchy, the bestest tcaliscally can be hoped fr, or wold aie by a proces iavolving ‘po morally impermissible seps, or would bean improvement if it arose, this would provide a rationale for che state's existence it ‘would jstify the sate.* “This investigation will ase ehe question of whether all the ace icons wih toy ea eens acing fm a ate wre by tnt a neal fete dentin ater ems Sey pest apie ing. Sachs tery mould me i” the ee6 Sirf Nata Thy tions persons must do to see up and operate a sate are themicves| ‘morally permissible. Some aazchsts have claimed oe merely that ‘ve would be beter off widhou «sae, but chat any sae nea ily violates people's moral rights and hence itrnscally im ‘moral. Our starting point then, chough nonpolicial, is by san ‘son far from nonmoral. Moral philosophy ses the background for and boundaries of, polccal philosophy. What persons may and may not do to one anocher limits what they may do though the apparatus of a save, of do to establish such an apparatus, The ‘moral prohibitions iis permisible ro enforce ate the source of whatever legitimacy the sate’ fundamental coercive power as (undamental coercive power is power not resting upon any cn- sent ofthe person to whom i¢ i applied.) This peovides «primary arena of state activity, perhaps the ony legitimate arena. Further” more, co che extent moeal philosophy is unclear and gives rite co lisagrements in people's moral judgments, i also sees problems ‘which one might think could be appropriately handled in the po- lial aren, In addition to ies imporance for political philosophy, che inves: Cigaton of chi state of nature alo will serve explanatory purpose, ‘The posible ways of understanding the policcal realm are a5 follows: (1) eo fall exp i in terms ofthe sonpolitical (2) «© ew i a emerging from che nonpoliial but iri to iy mode of organization of noapoiislfictors understandable only in terms of novel politcal principles o (3) view i a3 completely autonomous team. Since only the fst promises fll under: ‘standing ofthe whole poiial realm,” it stands at the most de- Sizable theoreical alernacive, tobe abandoned only if knowa to be imposible. Lee us call this most desitable and complete kind of ‘explanation of realm a fundamental explanation ofthe realm "To explain fundamentally the political in cerms ofthe nonpelit- ical, one might start either with a aonpolitial station, showing ‘how and why polite! one later would arte out of iyo with 2 Why State Narate Theory? 7 political station that i described nonpoliialy, deriving is po- Tia fears from its aonpoiialderripeion. This leer derva- tion either will iden ee politcal atures with those features ronpoliially described, or will use scientific laws eo connect dis- tince features. Excepe perhaps for this lst mode, ehe Of the explanation wll vey’ ditecely withthe independent glow of ‘he onpoical starting poine (be i sation or description) and with the distnce, real ot apparent, ofthe staring pointe fom is prises) result. The more fundamental the starting. poine (che ‘more it picks out basic. important, aed inescapable features ofthe Jhuman situation) and the les close ito seems to is eesule (the less poliial or stack looks), the better. Te would not increase ‘undercanding to reach the state ftom an arbitrary and otherwise Unimporcane saring. pont, cbviouly adjacene to i from the sare. Wheres discovering that political feaures and relations were cedacible to, ot idetial with, ostensibly very diferent non- pula ones would be an exciting rele. Were ceseFeacuesfun- ‘damental, the political realm would be femly aod deeply based So fr are we form such & major eheoreccal advance shat prudence lose would recommend chat we pursve che alternative of showing how political scuaion would arise oot of + nonpoliial one, chat is, that we begin a fundamental explanatory couse with what is familise within political philosophy as state-of racue theory "A theory of w acate of nacue that egine with Fendamentl gens ral desripeions of morally permisible and impermissible aceon, tnd of deeply bated reasons why some persons in any sociecy would ‘olae these moral constaits, and gos onto describe how a state Would aie ftom hae sate of nature will seve our explanatory Paps, cv fm acaal vtec aretha way. Hempel has dis- usted the notion of & potential explanation, which incuitvely {and roughly) is what would be the correce explanation if ever thing mentioned in i were true and opeated.* Lee us say that a lasraftioe potential explanation is 3 potential explanation with 2 false lawlike statement and that a cree potential explana ‘on ita potential explanation with a false acecedent condition. A potential explanation thar explains» phenomenon asthe esule of process P will be defective (eventhough ici neither aw-defectve oe face-defecive) if some procest Q other than P produced the« State Near Thy Phenomenon, though P was capable of doing it. Had this other process Q not produced it, then P would have.* Let us call» po ‘eotial explanation that fils in this way acualy to explain the Phenomenon a pronsrdfitive potential explanation, [A findamental potential explanation (an explanation that would explain che whole realm under consiecition were i the actual ex planation) cartes importane explanatory illumination even if iti ine che correc explanation. To see how, in principle, a whale raat could fundamentally be explained geealy increases ou under standing ofthe realm. es dificult rosy mote without examio~ ing types of eater; indeed, without examining particular eae, bat this we cannoe do here. Fatefective fundamental potential ex planations, if thee false inal condicons “could have been rue will carry great illumination; even willy fate initial conditions will laminate, somecimes very greatly. Law-efetve fundamen ‘al potential explanations may lumina che nature ofa ean al most as well as the cotrece explanation, especialy ifthe "laws gether frm an inceesting and integrated thecey. And proces- clfecive fundamental porental explanations (which ae either lawdefctve nor fact-dfetive) fe our explanatory bill and pur- poses almose perfectly. These dings could nor be suid as strony, if a all, about noafundamental explanation Seate-of nature explanations ofthe political seam ar fandamen- tal porentil explanations of ehis realm and pack explanatory Or, perhaps yc ahr prc would have 49 had, hough had st piel he pepe es Pld he the a ‘erence sould dP would have pode he pseoon bana eet 1g. RD das We ign he the Soni that weal Freee Q fam rodcing ee pensmenca might spon P Yi ding 1 Tica aad 1 beled wil or nce ot unending of seam ote lds pore cxlannnn acne knwo bea tha by ‘ig ean dace, gh wit oe line ade he eta ye is evo hin haan aploaton ef al mst ps airing ‘peta ng hr dete ype 9 sigh ms ain an Te lian of theca in eh tx soe ane the chr open, Yet ose ie ‘ces ll fr sch afc ee uo Kam “Catton, Nant Sb a eC rt," f gy. Bh Why Stato Nature Theory? ° punch and illumination, even if incorrect. We learn much by teeing How the sate could have arisen, even if diet arse chat sway. Ife did't aise that way, we also would lira mach by de- termining mhy i dia’; by trying eo explain why the particular Bic of the real world that diverges fom the scae-oF ature model Since considerations both of plitialphilosophy and of explane- tory political theory converge upon Locke's state of nature, we shall begin with that. More acursely, me shall begin with odie ‘ivals im something suficindly sma wo Locke's state of nature So that many of the otherwise important differences may be ig- foted here. Only when rome divergence beeween our conception tnd Lacke's is relevant c palia philosophy, to our argument tout the sate, will ie be mentioned, The completly sccrate staremene of the moral background, including the precise stae- tment of the moral theory and its underlying bass, would requte a false presentation and i tat for another ime (A lifetime?) ‘That esk iss crucial, che gap lef without its accomplishment 50 awning, that i only @ minor comfort c note that we het ate following the respectable edition of Locke, who does noe pro- Vide anything remotely resembling a saisfccory explanation of ‘the stats and basis of the law of nature in his Second TreatieCHAPTER 2 The State of Nature Sapper een lees Se The State of Necoe 8 thexe inconveniences avoid them or 10 make chem lest likely to arte oreo make them les serous on the ocasons when they do aie. Only after the fall resources of the state of mature are brought into play, namely all chow voluntary arrangements and sgreements persons might reich acing within thei rights, and only afer the eects of these ae estimated, will we besa psi tion tose ow serous are the inconveniences chit yet remain tO be remedicd! by the sar, and eo estimate whether the remedy i worse chan the disease * Tha state of nature, the understood natural law may no provide for every contingency ina proper fshion sce sections 159 and 160 where Locke makes this point about legal systems, but conta section 124), and men who judge in their own case will always sive themselves the bene ofthe doubr and assume tha they are tn the right. They will overestimate the amount of haem ot darn- age they have suffered, and pasions will lead them eo attempt 0 ppunish others more than proportionately and to exact excesive ‘compensation (cs. £5, 124, 125). Thus pita and pessonl en- forcement of one's rights (inching those eights chat are vilated when one is excessively punished) leads to feuds, co an endless teres of acts of retaliation and exactions of compensation. Aad there is no frm way cote sch a dispute, co ad ie and c have both putes know it ended. Even if oe party ay he'l sop his Prion bien ws dosition of the st dame “icooe: sient "Ta te GOVERNED i oe mace gtd ied pon, 3 ‘rl cine, number, epunted, ced ncn, pak 3 ‘niles heck nds salad, ceed, communded, By cee ‘Shee siete ig nthe wnen sr the wu odo. Tobe GOV. [ERNED i bene eery openten, st tncton noted, epee ‘ond, can, sonped, memared, pumice, aed, ene thr ‘Shmosieds peed, fede, me, cone, miele det Fert op wy, and he ne the gee ier, te led Sr contin, dee. Bowed, alate, monoplane fom, Sol boned, ibe te. aigher ven, be ft word ‘Gmpline, 10 be epee. eed lied, arma, haned down, sae, ‘Sed Ghamed, bound, kd imgriceed, uiged.coerned, st “ipod, sted, ld, Beeps ad cow al, che, eek ee ‘iki oseged, since. The government that fate thaw {moan PJ Prout, Gra a of te Rakion be No Conary te jh Beverly sion (endo: recom Pres 138 SSoetoq wih hme aes fom Bein Torker anna ea of Jbl ‘Bice Yon 803) 9382 Sut Naare Thay sts of retaliation, the other can ret secure ony if he knows he first sill does ar el entitled to gain ecompense orto enact eri bution, and therefore eniled 10 ery when a promising occasion presents itself Any metho a single individ might use in an ate tempt ittevocaby to Bind himself into ending his pare in feud ‘would offer insficiene assurance 0 the other party tacit agree iments to stop also would be unstable? Such feings of being mu tually weonged can accur even with the clearest right and with joine agreement on the fics ofeach person's conduct ll the more there opportunity fr such retaliatory battle when the facts or the rights are to some extent unclear, Also, in state of aure & pesson may lack che power to enforce hit rights he may be unable to punish or exact compensation fom 2 stronger adversary who has violated them Geets. 123, 126) Let us begin with the ast. In a state of ature an individual may himself enforce his rights, defend himself exact compenstion, and punish (or at lest ey his bes eo do 50). Others may join with him in his defense, a his call? They may jin with him eo eepulse an attacker or to go aftr an aggressor because they ae public spit- ined, of because chey ate his frends, or because he hat helped them inthe past, or because they wish him co help chem ia che Rutre, or in exchange for something. Grovps of individuals may form rmutual-procection associations: all wil answer the call of any member for defense or for the enforcement of his rights In won there is strength. Two inconveniences atend sich simple mutuale procection associations: (1) everyone it always on call to serve & procectve function (and how shall ite decided who shall answer the all for chose procective functions that do aot requite the e2- vices ofall membees?; and (2) any member may cll 0 his a80-