« Gustave de Molinari. The Production of Security. 1849. | Main | David Friedman: The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Open Court, La Salle Illinois, 1970. »
February 26, 2005
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books Inc. New York, 1974.
Nozick spends a lot of time discussing what can and cannot be prohibited. I don't understand why he chooses to use this word "prohibited." Prohibited seems to me to imply something different from simply taking preventative measures to safeguard against it occurring. Prohibition is simply the legislative process of deeming something illegitimate. But let's face it, anything can be arbitrarily deemed illegitimate especially when the entity performing the prohibition is a state. This says nothing about the actual action taking place, the violations of rights and justice involved, the subsequent actions to be taken afterwards, and certainly nothing in regards to the extent of precautionary tactics.
He proceeds to digress about fear that is felt by victims. He demonstrates that pure restitution does not account for fear. He fails to see the interpersonal utility comparison that he makes because no third party arbitrator can read the mind of a victim for whom he is deciding a case, but the voluntarism takes place when the contract is made between the arbiter and the victim for arbitration services and an acceptance of the ruling. He said that someone who knows their car will be stolen but compensated still drives around in fear. Well this person would also take precautions to protect his car especially if he felt said fear. All action is participated in so as to relieve felt uneasiness. We live in a constant state of fear because of the free will of other human beings. We are free to protect ourselves as much as we care to without aggressing upon the rights of other innocent people. For example I cannot kill everyone on the planet to alleviate my fear of being murdered.
Prohibition is only legitimate when the prohibitionist is the rightful owner of the resources in which he is claiming legitimacy over. For example I prohibit you from entering my home while wearing shoes, is a reasonable and legitimate prohibition, but to say that we as a community prohibit you from being a ballet dancer because of the potential affects it may upon us is ridiculous and un-defendable.
My notes on the text are lited below:
10. Chapter 2: The State of Nature: Man is in a state of free will in nature to engage his actions and do his will with his property. From this we can develop ought statements in regard to liberty, health, private property, and life etc...
Hoppe expands pat this, see notes from Benson: "To Serve and Protect"
11. Locke claims that overestimations of pain will take place, escalating violence. This is why we need a state?
13. "When a member of the association is in conflict with nonmembers, the association also will want to determine in some fashion who is the right, if only to avoid constant and costly involvement in each member's quarrels, whether just or unjust."
57. Punishment equal to the crime is the only just form of restitution.
58. This equal conception of restitution will not deter crime.
Block's Russian roulette doesn't necessarily solve this because it's crazy but it does expose the answer. Arbitration must take place. Interpersonal utility comparison. The victim has a greater voice in the anarchist court sentencing prison scenario. Let the market decide what the appropriate restitution is.
Posted by djdamico at February 26, 2005 8:51 AM