You can get a wonderful overview of the book on Wikipedia. So, rather than try to provide such an overview here, let me offer a few comments on what reading along these lines has meant to me.
Nozick's book is an outstanding logical development, building a philosophical framework upon a presuppositional base of preeminence of individual rights. I've read it cover-to-cover with interest and profit. This book provides an intellectual base to the school of Libertarianism that so attracts people in Ayn Rand's prose. Notably, I have read late-in-life interviews with Nozick in which he said that he became less libertarian as he got older.
This book really should be read in conjunction with John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," which I have not yet finished cover-to-cover due to its length and unavailability as an audiobook. After reading the most famous parts in Rawls book, I did finish a few good summaries and commentaries on the "Theory of Justice." Rawls and Nozick were contemporaries in the Philosophy Department at Harvard, and are leading minds on the left and right, respectively, of the American philosophical spectrum.
The Nozick logic leads to a world of perfect individual rights. In this world, charity becomes dependent on the free will of individuals who choose to grant charity. In this world, the more harsh aspects of Social Darwinism become morally permissible. However, the economist's problem of Moral Hazard (the freeloader problem) is completely solved. One who holds individual rights to be preeminent sees this Nozick system as perfectly satisfying the Golden Rule (aka principle of reciprocity), because at the formation of the social contract, all agree to accept individual rights as preeminent, thus "doing unto others as we would have them do to us."
The Rawls logic stems from applying the Golden Rule prior to developing the social contract behind a "veil of ignorance," in which founders/citizens do not yet know the circumstances and advantages of their birth. While complete individual rights may have been present while drawing up the social contract "behind the veil of ignorance," once out in society a measure of compassion and charity becomes almost obligatory, due to agreements made behind the veil of ignorance. In this world, the more harsh aspects of Social Darwinism will not be allowed by the social contract. However, this world is more susceptible to economist's problem of Moral Hazard (the freeloader problem) than Nozick's world.
Interestingly, both the Nozick and Rawls approach can be reconciled with both the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative, as can Ayn Rand's thesis (and I've read papers by philosopher graduate students and Ph.D graduates doing so).
My bottom line? If men and women were gods and goddesses, either of these systems could make a happy world. The problem is that we are not.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Similar items that may ship from close to you
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Reviews with images
All Photos
Robert Nozick thought too much of anarchy and not enough about Utopia
Too much anarchy always leads to too much government...the problem is, a state is a natural growth of economics...the solution is laizze faire economics with a minimalized constinutally, strictly limited government...
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on June 27, 2009
Reviewed in the United States on August 2, 2018
Reviewed in the United States on March 2, 2021
Reviewed in the United States on February 17, 2015
Reviewed in the United States on October 30, 2019
Reviewed in the United States on June 23, 2018
Reviewed in the United States on May 2, 2017
Top reviews from other countries
Michael Schwinn
Wie ein liberaler Staat und eine liberale Gesellschaft aussehn kann
Reviewed in Germany on March 18, 2022
Fernando Vaz
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE STATE
Reviewed in Brazil on October 22, 2014Alok
All good except if you choose to order from PBC.
Reviewed in India on April 8, 2016