Anarchy, State and Utopia

Equality

In Chapter 8, Nozick argues that many people assume that adjusting social institutions to produce greater equality of material conditions is just. However, he contends, this belief does not have sufficient justification. He further advances his own entitlement conception of justice as related to individuals’ right to possessions. The entitlement conception does not assume that equality is essential or inherent in society. Instead, his conception evaluates distributions historically, based on how they arise. Thus, Nozick emphasizes the legitimacy of processes over outcomes.

Equality of Opportunity

In this section, Nozick addresses the concept of equality of opportunity, which is often considered a minimal goal for equality. He identifies two methods to achieve this: worsening the situation of those more favored or improving the situation of the less favored, which involves reallocating resources. Therefore, the latter, Nozick argues, still implies worsening the situation for those more privileged. Nozick contends that forcibly seizing holdings, even for leveling opportunities, violates individual privileges and rights. Nozick believes that opportunities are the result of individual choices and exchanges.

Self-Esteem and Envy

In this section, Nozick explores the concept of envy in the context of egalitarianism. He defines envy as an individual not wanting to have something that one cannot have for oneself. Nozick differentiates envy from jealousy, spite, and competitiveness and argues that envy informs some egalitarian desires. Ultimately, he believes that altering a system to reduce envy by distributing privileges equally could possibly intensify the emotion. He also thinks that it is unfair for a society to restrict individuals’ actions and abilities just to alleviate some people’s discomforts.

Meaningful Work

In his exploration of self-esteem in work environments, Nozick challenges the generalization that being frequently ordered about in a subordinate position negatively affects self-esteem. He uses examples of symphony orchestra members, conscripts in armies, socialist coordinators in factories, and professionals in an ascending process within a company to show that self-esteem does not suffer due to being in a subordinate position to authority.

In addition, Nozick suggests that low self-esteem among subordinates may stem from their initial disposition toward authority. He proposes that an entitlement theory might help alleviate some of these self-esteem issues, as it does not attribute authority to personal superiority but, instead, acknowledges that benefits may have been transferred or obtained through a social process.

He also addresses the notion of meaningful and satisfying work, defining it through criteria like exercising talents, engaging in valued activities, understanding one’s role in a larger picture, and having some decision-making autonomy. He acknowledges the intrinsic desirability of such work and its impact on individuals beyond their professional lives. Nozick considers that normative expectations in society may lead to drawing the wrong conclusions about the causes of negative life aspects.

Addressing how capitalism might respond to desires for meaningful work, Nozick outlines three potential responses: workers accepting lower wages for more personally rewarding work, consumers choosing to pay more for products from companies offering meaningful work, or governmental intervention to incentivize meaningful work. However, he thinks that the last option might unfairly impose certain values on individuals.

Workers’ Control

Nozick notes that in a capitalist system, companies could provide meaningful jobs and democratic authority structures to a degree. However, this is unlikely to happen in a democratic system. Instead, Nozick proposes that cooperative companies run by “any wealthy radical or group of workers” are a viable option for implementing democratic management and providing meaningful work (250). However, he notes that issues like lack of investment, profit distribution, and decisions about new hirings may arise in such companies. If worker-controlled factories are less market efficient, they might pay lower wages or charge higher prices, relying on consumer support to maintain a socially just work environment. The success of such companies depends on the willingness of workers and consumers to prioritize nonmonetary benefits. Nozick also brings up the position of unions and asks why more unions do not start businesses.

Marxian Exploitation

Nozick notes that the Marxist theory of value relies excessively on labor time, which is determined by market outcomes. This theory argues that workers are exploited due to their lack of access to the means of production, which results in the workers being forced to sell their labor to capitalists. According to Marxist theory, in a society with a public sector offering work, exploitation would be absent, as workers would not be forced to work for capitalists.

Nozick argues that the reality of the market is more complicated than Marxist theory describes. He argues that the Marxist theory of value does not address the value of production but only the end amount and result. Thus, Nozick thinks that the Marxist theory of value struggles with accounting for risks associated with production, as profits in capitalist systems can arise from factors like innovation, market uncertainty, and entrepreneurial alertness rather than just the labor invested.

Voluntary Exchange

Nozick argues that actions are voluntary if limited by nature but not if they are restricted by others without the right to do so. He argues that when scarcity is natural, choices are limited but not imposed. On the labor market, according to Nozick, a worker’s choice to accept a job, even if it is the only option to avoid starvation, is voluntary if others have acted within their rights.

Philanthropy

Nozick explores the idea of voluntary support for beneficial causes in society, such as worker-controlled factories or poverty reduction, without compulsory redistribution. He suggests that individual contributions to such causes are less effective or costlier without mandatory participation. The effectiveness of voluntary contributions could diminish if everyone does not contribute, especially if tackling a problem requires collective action. The cost might feel higher if individuals perceive themselves as “suckers” for contributing while others are “getting away” with not participating. Nozick suggests that if most individuals were willing to contribute, there would be less of an issue with comparison between those who contribute and those who are “free riders.” However, he believes that compelling those unwilling to contribute violates moral constraints, indicating the need to respect individual choices and focus on persuading rather than forcing participation.

Having a Say Over What Affects You

Nozick argues that personal decisions can significantly affect others; however, this does not mean that they violate anyone’s rights. He argues that having a right to decide does not force one to consider other people’s preferences. He gives marriage proposals, retirement choices, and the use of one’s property as examples. In addition, Nozick criticizes the idea that long-term use or enjoyment of something grants ownership rights, pointing to rent-control laws, which he considers unfair.

The Nonneutral State

Nozick argues that while economic inequalities often lead to political power imbalances, strengthening the state to ensure economic equality is not effective. He suggests that a minimal state, focused on enforcing basic rights like contract and property law, remains neutral and is less prone to corruption. Enforcing basic rights protects individual rights and minimizes the state’s overreach.

How Redistribution Operates

Nozick observes that government programs often benefit the middle class more than the poor. Therefore, he asks why poor people do not massively vote for redistribution. He suggests that between the rich 49% and the poor 49%, there is a middle 2%, and they are always swayed by the rich portion.