RawlsRawls

Rejection Radicalization

Rawl’s ideal is undesirable (communitarian)

Rawl’s theory is infeasible

Why?

Because…Because…

• The theory has no regard for history.

• Primarily: the second principle has no regard for how the things that are to be distributed originated –– I.e. who made them, who exchanged them, etc.– “Isn’t it implausible that how holdings are

produced and come to exist has no effect at all on who should own what?”

Bob Nozick 1963-2002Bob Nozick 1963-2002

• Professor at Harvard from 1969 until his death in 2002.

• By all accounts, an excellent teacher who engaged students in the activity of doing philosophy, rather than merely presenting the completed ideas.

• Originally a member of the radical left in the 1960s, converted to ‘libertarian anarchism’ in grad school.

"Presenting a completely polished and worked-out view doesn't give students a feel for what it's like to do original work in philosophy and to see it happen, to catch on to doing it."

What Nozick is not:What Nozick is not:

• A right-wing philosopher.• Anarchy State and Utopia is a critique of the

Theory of Justice – and at it’s core is a rejection of the 2nd principle of justice (recall: that wealth should be distributed in such a way as to advantage the worst off, but only if it doesn’t violate the first principle).

• That is, Nozick holds that liberty is everything, and only a minimal state should exist.

• That is to say: he is a free-marketer, but HE IS NOT SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE!

• Republicans today (or at least, those in power in the Republican party today) do not believe in social liberties.

“right-wing people like the pro-free-market argument, but don't like the arguments for individual liberty in cases like gay rights - although I view them as an interconnecting whole. ..." (1979 article in the NY Times)

Anarchy, State and UtopiaAnarchy, State and Utopia

• Basic thesis: That a minimal state is the best state, and the only defensible state.– Part 1: justification of the ‘minimal

state’– Part 2: why a minimal state is the

only justifiable state.

Basics:Basics:

• Justification of the state is a matter of showing that the state would be superior to the most favored situation of anarchy

• So, what is the role of political philosophy in regards the state of nature?

• Political theory as explanation • 1. Reduce the political to the non-political• 2. Show how the political emerges out of the non-political• 3. To view the political as an autonomous realm.

• (1) is ‘fundamental’, as it is desirable, and only abandoned if known to be impossible.

Part 1 (con’t)Part 1 (con’t)

• To explain political fully, one might start either with a nonpolitical and show how the political rises out of it, or with a political situation described nonpolitically and how it derives its political features from its nonpolitical description.

Explanation?Explanation?

• We’re all despicable, greedy creatures who want desperately to kill one another so we can steal each other’s stuff

• Absolute Monarchy!

Explanation?Explanation?

• We’re free to determine our own actions within the boundaries of the natural law – which includes the duty to punish offenders of that natural law.

• Republican democracy with limitations on rights.

Explanation?Explanation?

• We’re all wonderful, gentle creatures whose violence is the result of greed (a notion foreign to us).

• Pure democracy & General will

Explanation?Explanation?

• We’re rational individuals with no knowledge of our social status, history, gender, race, etc.

• Liberal democracy w/ modern safety net.

The state of nature:The state of nature:

• Men are own judge of extent to which they are wronged, leading to excessive punishment.

• Overpunishment will lead to feuds

• Feuds won’t be stopped by agreement – the feelings of resentment will linger

• Person may lack power to enforce rights.

• This will lead to mutually protective associations.

• But, everyone is bound to respond to a call

• And, everyone is able to call the others

• This will lead to everyone being at the beck and call of the most paranoid member of society.

• (bad)

• What if two members of the same protection association are in conflict? – If they deal w/ it by non-intervention, the

members will look for other protection schemes

• These inconveniences can be handled by ‘division of labor and exchange’. Entrepreneurs will offer services tailored to individuals…

• Several companies appear – what occurs when there is a conflict? 1 Battle: one wins, the other loses

2 Battle, both win, geographically.

3. Neither wins, battles continue.

• What about an ‘outlaw’ agency?

• SO, we have a ‘dominant protective agency’. Is it a state?

• It fails to satisfies the minimal conception (legitimate monopoly on coercian)(1) it allows some people to enforce their rights,

and

(2) it appears not to protect all individuals within its domain.

• To be a state, it must be a monopoly. A monopoly can be violated in 2 ways:

(1) a person may use force though unauthorized by the state (2) A person may claim authority over and against the state.

• The state must claim that it will punish everyone whom it discovers to have used force without its express permission. The dominant protective agency fails on (2) Also on (1), since only those paying for protection get

protected.

Minimal and Ultra-minimalMinimal and Ultra-minimal

Minimal state is the night-watchman state – limited to the functions of protecting all its citizens against violence, theft and fraud, and to the enforcement of contracts, and so on…

The ultraminimal state exists between the scheme of private protective associations (which fails to pass the test for minimal statehood) and the night watchman – this is the ultraminimal state, and it is the nightwatchman (with monopoly), but it provides protection only to those who pay for it. Minimal is ultramninimal + voucher / tax plan for financing.

Nozick claims that this critique is based on taking the goal of moral theory as good, not as right itself. – Ie: utilitarianism seeks to maximize good (i.e pleasure).

The proponent of the ultraminimal state seeks to maximize rights.

– We would then violate rights only when doing so minimizes the total (weighted) amount of violation of rights in society

– Alternately, one might place rights as side constraints on the actions to be done: Don’t violate constraints C. & the rights of others determine C.

– The objection noted above assumed that the proponent of the ultraminimal state assumed the ultitarianism of rights. If we hold the side constraint view – that non-violation of rights is a constraint on actions, the ultraminimal state is not self-contradictory: being forced to contribute to another’s welfare violates your rights, where as not providing you with something does not itself violate your rights.

• Thus we have an argument: – The best moral form is constraints on actions – The best moral constraining is the distinctness of

individuals, each with his or her own life to lead – And it follows that the libertarian constraint.

• The prohibition on utilitarian usury is entailed by the fact that each of us has his or her own life to lead

• The prohibition on paternalistic aggression is entailed by the fact that each of us has his or her own life to lead.

• Animals: • 1. Arguments from moral spillover don’t count. • 2. Arguments from nutritional need don’t apply.

• Suppose an act of bat-swinging would kill a cow. Should I swing the bat? Pleasure is one thing – does it give enough pleasure to justify the pain the cow receives? What kind of pleasure would be necessary to outweigh the pain of the cow?

• 3. Arguments from ‘there are more cows because we eat them’ don’t apply.

• Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people.: Maximize happiness for all living creatures; place stringent side constraints on what we can do to people.

Back to the state:Back to the state:• Why the dominant protective agency falls short of a state: • But this is exactly the anarchist’s point: by monopolizing,

the state becomes intrinsically immoral. • To show how the dominant protective associations

become a state, and a moral state at that right, we need to show:

• 1) how an ultraminimal state arises • 2) How the ultraminimal state becomes the minimal state

• And… how the transitions from 0-1-2 are each morally legitimate.- we’ll see that when we deal with resisters to the agreements.

What if I don’t agree?What if I don’t agree?

• Are others forbidden to perform actions that transgress the boundary or encroach upon the circumscribed area, or are they permitted to perform such actions provided that they compensate the person whose boundary has been crossed? – A system forbids an action to a person if it imposes some

penalty upon him for doing the act, in addition of exacting compensation from him for the act’s victims.

• Compensation = iff it makes him no worse off than he otherwise would have been

• A person may do anything to himself. And may voluntarily allow others to do those things to himself/herself for compensation– Deterrence = make the cost higher than the

expected gain.– What of compensation for future attack at

unspecified time?

Nope:Nope:

• Because fear and anxiety are often underestimated by those ‘in the moment’.– Note: public wrongs are those that

cause fear generally (sexual offenses, violence against women, races, e.g.)

– Must be disallowed, because compensation is far, far too much.

And…And…

• An independent can be prohibited from exacting private justice from another because his procedure for determining wrongs is known to be risky or dangerous or because his procedure isn’t known not to be risky. – Thus, if someone consistently judged others as

violators, his procedure would induce fear. If this continued, we’d have a dangerous situation for all.

Therefore, Therefore,

• The dominant protective association, then, has the right to announce that it will punish anyone who uses a procedure on one of its clients that is unfair

• The independent needs to be protected from enforcement from the members of the dominant protective association because of the risk of unjust, unreliable procedures coming back on the state – thus, it is to the advantage of the dominant protective association to cover all. Even if they don’t want it.

• Thus, in the case of protecting the independents, we only need compensate them for disadvantage suffered from being protected. Which is, more or less, very little. But let’s say that the fee imposed is slighter. Isn’t it probably that many will leave the dominant protection agency to get its services at lower cost? – No

• a dominant protective agency satisfies the two necessary conditions for a state: universal coverage and a monopoly over enforcement. And without violating the moral status of the individuals that make it up. – And, mind you, it’s by the invisible-hand

explanation.

The argument illustrated The argument illustrated practically:practically:

On what grounds can we say that the actions of the majority are immoral?

Two variationsTwo variations

In what way is the power of the majority limited by morality?

OrWhat actions of the

state are impermissible?

In what ways are we, as individuals obligated to resist the immorality of the majority?

OrWhat actions of the

individual are obligatory, even if they are illegal?

The question, then is this:The question, then is this:

Where does politics stop and ethics begin?

‘‘Personhood’Personhood’

In reality (I.e. historically) defined by the dominant religion / ideology of the time:

Slaves as 3/5Women as propertyWomen as childishAtheists (heathens) as infidelsThe colonized as children

What is a person?What is a person?

If a bird craps on your head, do we hold it morally responsible?

Personhood as moral Personhood as moral agentagent

We hold people morally responsible for their actions – that is what separates people from birds, tools, etc..– If you want praise, you must take blame.– Taking responsibility for the outcomes of your

actions is the fundamental defining fact of the status of full ‘personhood’:

• Child -> adult• Adult -> Senility• Imaginary cases of ‘brainwashing’ or ‘homunculus‘

control.

If the state is limited w.r.t. my personhood, then the state is immoral if it:

1. Makes moral decisions for me.2. Blocks my actions from the responsibility they

entail.3. Convinces me that I am not a fully moral agent,

capable of making my own decisions.

And, when it (or someone else) does (1) (2) or (3), they ‘dehumanize’ me – they make me something less than a moral agent, and therefore less than a full, autonomous person.

Comparison:Comparison:

• Rawls = the first principle of liberty is based on the one freedom that cannot be denied: freedom of conscience.

• Nozick = personhood as limiting factor of state BUT, personhood defined in terms of intention, not responsibility.

The differences play out:The differences play out:

Any institution that blocks my responsibility for my actions while a part of that institution dehumanizes me:

1. The DMV2. Tech Support3. Caps on lawsuits4. Blockage of lawsuits against HMOs5. Corporate fraud loopholes.

Second:Second:

Responsibility extends beyond my intentions to the results of my actions

1. Union Carbide’s Bopal disaster.2. Exxon Valdez3. Double parking

ReflectionsReflections

The ‘perpetual adolescence’ in American culture is one aspect of absolving individuals of their responsibility – of dehumanizing them to something less than a fully moral agent.

Trickery afoot!Trickery afoot!

• Recall where we were w/ Nozick:– The question was: how to we move

from a dominant protective association to a legitimate monopoly without violating the individual’s status as a person (who can plan)?

• Now, we have a better sense of the problem:– How do we force others to participate in our

system of government without blocking their right to plan for their future

Or– How do we force others not to block my

responsibility / right to make moral decision without, thereby, blocking their right to make moral decisions?

For NozickFor Nozick

The paranoid accuses me of causing him pain, and seeks compensation.

I ask for evidence of that pain, and proof that I will be judged fairly.

If the paranoid cannot produce satisfactory evidence, or cannot demonstrate that his system of adjudication is reliable, I am under no obligation to compensate him.

So what will happen if there is an independent paranoid in our midst?

Fear.

But the state is obligated to prevent fear – because no compensation can be fair.

Therefore, the state is obligated to announce that anyone using an unreliable method of justice against anyone of its clients will be punished (proportionately to the fear induced).

What about an independent who never uses his/her unreliable procedure?

Still not allowed, because of an epistemic constraint – we cannot know that that independent will not use it in the future (without some sort of prohibition on such use), and the fear of the unknown is still fear.

So…So…

We, as members of the association, can seek huge compensation awards from the radical independent just because they might use an unreliable procedure against us.

That’s not a good thing.

Monopoly?Monopoly?

• Almost – the dominant protective association does have a unique status,– it alone enforces the prohibition on

unreliable procedures.– It alone determines the procedures

that are reliable.

To get to monopoly…To get to monopoly…

Consider a driving epileptic.The prohibition on his/her driving does

violate his/her plan in life, BUT the risk (fear) caused by not prohibiting is too great.

How much would it cost to compensate all those who fear the epileptic v. the amount we have to pay the epileptic?

The radical is like the The radical is like the epileptic…epileptic…

The independent radical causes far more fear (which would have to be compensated at a very high rate) than the compensation entailed by their being forced to join the dominant protective association.

How much compensation?How much compensation?

The epileptic gets enough compensation to remove the damage caused by his/her not driving.

The radical independent is compensated for the disadvantages of joining the dominant protective association (which are? - judged by the procedure endorsed by the dominant protective association, after all).

Let’s suppose it’s fair…Let’s suppose it’s fair…

Then while you and I pay for protection, the radical independent gets paid for the same protection!

Why not quit the state and start receiving a check?

Minimal conditions for a Minimal conditions for a state?state?

1. Universal coverage within a geographic region

2. Monopoly over enforcement.

…and all of this without violating the individual’s right to plan without compensating them for the inconvenience!

The General Problem:The General Problem:

• Why use a state of nature argument?

• We’re all despicable, greedy creatures who want desperately to kill one another so we can steal each other’s stuff

• Absolute Monarchy!

• We’re free to determine our own actions within the boundaries of the natural law – which includes the duty to punish offenders of that natural law.

• Republican democracy with limitations on rights.

• We’re all wonderful, gentle creatures whose violence is the result of greed (a notion foreign to us).

• Pure democracy & General will

• We’re rational individuals with no knowledge of our social status, history, gender, race, etc.

• Liberal democracy w/ modern safety net.

• We’re free to determine our own actions within the boundaries of natural law, but we also bind together into groups for protection.

• Libertarian ‘minimal state’.

The question is:The question is:

• Given that we have 6 different conclusions from the same methodology – why should we buy that methodology?– That is, replication is a key to

knowledge. – Even if all 6 philosopher’s work is free

from logical error, shouldn’t we distrust this method?

What is the minimal state?What is the minimal state?

• It’s a night-watchman state – limited to protecting it’s citizens from violence, theft and fraud and the enforcement of contacts.

The Ultra-minimal state?The Ultra-minimal state?

• And ultraminimal state maintains a monopoly over all use of force expect that necessary in immediate self-defense, and so excludes private (or agency) retaliation for wrong and exaction of compensation; but it provides protection and enforcement services only to those who purchase its protection and enforcement principles.