6 - Libertarianism - Ethics

Nozick

• Anarchy, State and Utopia 1974

• Counter attack to Rawls

• Argues for a minimal state focused only on protection (force, theft, fraud, contracts). Expanding beyond this violates individual rights and is unjustified. The minimal state is both just and inspiring

Just institutions

must respect individual liberties, whatever the consequences

Separate individuals

next to each other and each of them has his/her own right that cannot be violated.

“There are only individual people, with their own individual lives” Nozick

Not consequensialist

• not like utilitarianism

• opposite of marxism

• core principle is freedom

Minimal state

central core concept. = aimed to protect the rights of individuals, but not much more than that.

—> marxism makes no sens for nzick because there’s no social classes , there is individuals.

central concepts of libertarianism

1. The right to self-ownership

2. Voluntary transfer

3. Production

4. Minimal state

5. Initial acquisition

6. Rectification

The right to self-ownership

Nozick : individuals fully own themselves, including their bodies and talents. This principle justifies opposition to taxes, as they violate this fundamental right.

Rejection of paternalism:

• The state should not impose restrictions to protect individuals from themselves.

Some restrictions on self-ownership are justified:

• Slavery: Selling oneself into slavery is self-destructive.

• Children: They must be protected and educated to ensure their future freedom.

• Criminals: Incarceration is justified if they pose a threat to society.

Voluntary transfer

Freedom requires access to external resources, which can be acquired through voluntary transactions with legitimate owners. This includes buying objects or contracting labor, as long as the exchange is voluntary (e.g., labor contracts vs. slavery).

• Meritocracy and taxation:

  • While talents may not be “deserved,” individuals have the right to benefit from them and should not be heavily taxed.

  • This aligns with a minimal state approach that excludes social programs or minimum income.

• Charity vs. taxation:

  • Helping the poor voluntarily (e.g., donating to NGOs) is acceptable.

  • Mandatory redistribution (e.g., through taxes) violates the principle of voluntary transfer.

Production

Individuals use their talents (self-ownership) and owned external resources (via voluntary transfers) to produce goods and services.

• Ownership of production:

  • Example: A company owner acquires resources, invests in machines, and becomes the legitimate owner of goods produced by workers, as they are paid for their labor.

  • This aligns with Nozick’s principle of just ownership through voluntary agreements.

• Contrast with Marxism: Marxism argues that capitalists exploit workers by taking what they produce, whereas Nozick defends the owner's right to the outcomes of their investments and contracts.

Initial acquisition

• Resources previously unowned can be acquired based on a “first come, first served” principle, applied to land, ideas, etc.

  • Intellectual property rights (IPR) are protected by the minimal state, as they stem from legitimate acquisition.

• Historical perspective:

  • A “naïve” view sees history as a series of legitimate initial acquisitions followed by voluntary transactions.

  • Problem: Many past acquisitions (e.g., colonial land grabs) were illegitimate, as they violated individual rights.

• Response to past injustices:

  • Nozick acknowledged this issue and introduced a compensation principle to address the consequences of unjust acquisitions.

Rectification

Nozick recognizes that past violations of property rights (e.g., illegitimate acquisitions) create injustices that may require compensation or rectification.

limits of libertarianism

1. Challenges of implementing rectification

2. Discrimination and property rights

challenges of implementing rectifications

Defining victims and beneficiaries: It's difficult to clearly identify who should compensate and who should be compensated for past injustices (e.g., Indigenous peoples or African American descendants).

Complex scenarios: Mixed descendants (e.g., children of interracial couples) complicate the process further.

Paradox: Rectification often requires taxation, which contradicts the libertarian principle of self-ownership.

Discrimination and property rights

• Libertarian Ron Paul opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

  • Against Jim Crow laws (state-imposed segregation), as they conflict with the minimal state.

  • However, he argued that the CRA’s restrictions on property rights (e.g., banning discrimination in private businesses) infringe on owners' freedom to manage their property as they choose.

Libertarianism and Open Borders

1. Support for open borders:

   • Principle of self-ownership: free movement is a fundamental individual liberty.

   • Minimal state philosophy: Borders are enforced by state agencies, which contradicts the libertarian goal of minimizing state control.

2. Economic argument:

   • Voluntary transactions: Employers hiring workers from abroad are restricted

   • Pro-business libertarians: Business owners often support open borders to hire needed labor, aligning with libertarian principles.

3. Not consequentialist:

   • Libertarianism focuses on individual rights, not aggregate welfare. Even if open borders were shown to harm overall societal welfare (unlike utilitarianism), the restriction would remain unjustifiable.

Caplan Joshi

Against opening borders

1. Collective ownership of nations

• Some argue that nations, as collective entities, have the right to decide who may enter, framing this as a property right.

• Counterargument:

  • Libertarianism opposes the concept of collective rights, emphasizing only individual property rights.

  • Using collective ownership arguments risks justifying violations of individual rights, such as wealth redistribution, aligning more with communism than libertarianism.

2. Cultural preservation (liberal values)

• Concern: Large-scale migration from illiberal cultures might erode the liberal values of destination countries (e.g., democracy, free speech, gender equality).

• Counterexample:

  • The USA has historically welcomed massive immigration without losing its liberal values, as assimilation often aligns migrants with those values.

Joshi