| In this dissertation, I provide a critical outline of Robert Nozick's "theory" of the state and justice, which he presented in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozick, then a libertarian, developed an intriguing and thoughtful critique of mainstream liberal theories, mainly John Rawls' Theory of Justice.; I show that for extrinsic and intrinsic reasons, Nozick failed to produce a convincing theory. First, extrinsically, he uses a presently highly controversial model as his starting point: the state of nature. Second, he leans on natural rights which might not fit into our century's society as they did 300 years ago. Third, he might have 'adjusted' Locke's concepts to the disadvantage of his theory (e.g., theological foundation, ownership, and the proviso). Fourth, he did not sufficiently distinguish himself from Rawls and suffers similar circular lapses and weaknesses in regard to abstract assumptions. Fifth, Nozick could only partially withstand a critique provided by feminist thinkers.; But even if we assume that Nozick is justified in all the above, his project suffers from certain internal flaws. First, his theory is admittedly not a theory, rather a "fragmentum" of a theory. Second, it lacks the foundation of a moral theory and a rights theory (namely in regard to property). Third, Nozick works with an autonomistic human concept that is only part of real human nature. Fourth, his development of the state out of the state of nature faces undefended hurdles. Fifth, Nozick never provided the announced specifications of his "Entitlement Theory"; it remains vague and circular. I elaborate on the circularity of explanatory philosophical methods.; My project contains many references to the legal world (both Common Law and Civil Law). For historic reasons I explore in a broader sense two kindred authors: Locke and Rawls, the former because of his position as Nozick's alleged forebear, and the latter because of his oeuvre that represents the immediate starting point and object of criticism for Nozick. The structure of my dissertation is not one of an argument to change one's opinion, I think of it more as a concert of creative highlights which hopefully, illuminate and stimulate the readers' own thoughts. |
