Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Anarchy,State, and Utopia', 'Letters to Coste' and 'Power/Knowledge'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts

---

5 ideas

24. Political Theory / B. Nature of a State / 1. Purpose of a State

18643	A minimal state should protect, but a state forcing us to do more is unjustified [Nozick]
	Full Idea: A minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified.
	From: Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], Pref)
	A reaction: This has some plausibility for a huge modern state, where we don't know one another, but it would be a ridiculous attitude in a traditional village.

24. Political Theory / C. Ruling a State / 1. Social Power

8991	Foucault can't accept that power is sometimes decent and benign [Foucault, by Scruton]
	Full Idea: It became impossible for Foucault to accept that power is sometimes decent and benign.
	From: report of Michel Foucault (Power/Knowledge [1980]) by Roger Scruton - Upon Nothing: Swansea lecture p.12
	A reaction: Actually Idea 7425 suggests that Foucault has no dream of eliminating power, but he does seem to be utterly in favour of maximum autonomy, and to regard paternalism as inherently evil. What sort of parent would Foucault have been?

24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 2. Anarchism

18642	Individual rights are so strong that the state and its officials must be very limited in power [Nozick]
	Full Idea: Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do.
	From: Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], Pref)
	A reaction: This claim appears to be an axiom, but I'm not sure that the notion of 'rights' make any sense unless someone is granting the rights, where the someone is either a strong individual, or the community (perhaps represented by the state).

24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 6. Liberalism / c. Liberal equality

18644	States can't enforce mutual aid on citizens, or interfere for their own good [Nozick]
	Full Idea: A state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purposes of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection.
	From: Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], Pref)
	A reaction: You certainly can't apply these principles to children, so becoming an 'adult' seems to be a very profound step in Nozick's account. At what age must we stop interfering with people for their own good. If the state is prohibited, are neighbours also?

24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 6. Liberalism / g. Liberalism critique

22661	My Anarchy, State and Utopia neglected our formal social ties and concerns [Nozick on Nozick]
	Full Idea: The political philosophy represented in Anarchy, State and Utopia ignored the importance of joint and official symbolic statement and expression of our social ties and concern, and hence (I have written) is inadequate.
	From: comment on Robert Nozick (Anarchy,State, and Utopia [1974], p.32) by Robert Nozick - The Nature of Rationality p.32
	A reaction: In other words, it was far too individualistic, and neglected community, even though it has become the sacred text for libertarian individualism. Do any Nozick fans care about this recantation?