Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya - Anarchy, State, and Utopia

Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya
Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya (birinchi nashr) .JPG
Birinchi nashrning muqovasi
MuallifRobert Nozik
MamlakatQo'shma Shtatlar
TilIngliz tili
MavzuTarqatuvchi adolat
NashriyotchiAsosiy kitoblar
Nashr qilingan sana
1974
Media turiChop etish (qattiq qopqoqli va qog'ozli qog'oz )
Sahifalar334
ISBN978-0-465-09720-3
320.1/01
LC klassiJC571 .N68

Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya bu amerikalikning 1974 yilgi kitobidir siyosiy faylasuf Robert Nozik. 1975 yilda AQShda g'olib bo'ldi Milliy kitob mukofoti yilda toifadagi falsafa va din,[1] 11 tilga tarjima qilingan va Buyuk Britaniya tomonidan "urushdan beri eng nufuzli 100 ta kitob" (1945–1995) qatoriga kiritilgan. Times adabiy qo'shimchasi.[2]

Qarama-qarshi ravishda Adolat nazariyasi (1971) tomonidan Jon Rols va bilan munozarada Maykl Valzer,[3] Nozik a tarafdori minimal holat, "kuch ishlatish, o'g'irlik, firibgarlik, shartnomalarni ijro etish va hokazolardan himoya qilishning tor funktsiyalari bilan cheklangan." Nozik ta'kidlashicha, davlat bundan kattaroq javobgarlikni o'z zimmasiga olganda, huquqlar buziladi. Minimal davlat g'oyasini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun Nozik minimalist davlatning anarxiyadan qanday qilib tabiiy ravishda paydo bo'lishini va ushbu minimalist chegaradan o'tgan davlat hokimiyatining har qanday kengayishining asossizligini ko'rsatadigan dalillarni keltiradi.

Xulosa

Nozikning huquq nazariyasi, bu odamlarni ko'radi o'zlari bilan tugaydi va tovarlarni qayta taqsimlashni faqat rozilik sharti bilan oqlaydi, bu asosiy jihatdir Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya. Bunga ta'sir qiladi Jon Lokk, Immanuil Kant va Fridrix Xayek.[4]

Shuningdek, kitobda kuchli himoya mavjud minarxist libertarizm kabi haddan tashqari qarashlarga qarshi anarxo-kapitalizm (unda mavjud yo'q davlat va jismoniy shaxslar uchun xususiy kompaniyalar bilan shartnoma tuzishi shart barchasi ijtimoiy xizmatlar). Nozikning ta'kidlashicha, anarxo-kapitalizm muqarrar ravishda a ga aylanadi minarxist hatto birortasini buzmasdan ham davlat tajovuz qilmaslik tamoyillari, oxir-oqibat bitta mahalliy dominant paydo bo'lishi orqali xususiy mudofaa va sud agentlik bilan kelishish har kimning manfaatlariga javob beradi, chunki boshqa idoralar ko'pchilikni qamrab olgan holda agentlikning afzalliklari bilan samarali raqobatlasha olmaydi. Shuning uchun, hatto anarxo-kapitalistik nazariya qanchalik to'g'ri bo'lsa ham, bu o'z-o'zidan amalda "davlat" bo'lgan yagona, xususiy, himoya agentligiga olib keladi. Shunday qilib anarxo-kapitalizm faqat minimalist davlat paydo bo'lguncha cheklangan davrda mavjud bo'lishi mumkin.

Falsafiy faoliyat

So'zi Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya "falsafiy asarni taqdim etishning odatiy uslubi" haqidagi parchani o'z ichiga oladi, ya'ni uning mavzusi bo'yicha mutlaqo yakuniy so'z bo'lib taqdim etilishi. Nozik bunga ishonadi faylasuflar ular haqiqatan ham mo''tadil va o'zlarining ishlarining zaif tomonlarini bilishadi. Shunga qaramay, falsafiy faoliyatning bir shakli davom etmoqda, u "belgilangan shaklning biron bir qat'iy perimetriga moslashish uchun narsalarni itarish va itarish kabi ko'rinadi". Shishalar maskalanadi yoki shish paydo bo'lishining sababi tashlanadi uzoq hech kim payqamasligi uchun. Keyin "Tezda, siz hamma narsani juda mos tushadigan va suratga tushadigan burchakni topasiz, shunda tezroq tortishish tezligida, boshqa biron bir narsa sezilarli darajada chiqib ketguncha. "Qorong'i xonaga teginish uchun sayohatdan so'ng," [a] ll qoladi fotosuratni narsalarning aynan qanday shakllanishini aks ettirish va boshqa hech qanday shaklga qanday qilib mos kelmasligini ta'kidlash uchun nashr eting. "Xo'sh, Nozikning faoliyati ushbu faoliyat turidan nimasi bilan farq qiladi? U aytganlarini to'g'ri deb hisoblar edi, ammo u bunday emas t niqoblarni maskalash: "shubhalar, tashvishlar va noaniqliklar, shuningdek e'tiqodlar, e'tiqodlar va dalillar".

Nega tabiat nazariyasi?

Ushbu bobda Nozik nima uchun tergov qilishini tushuntirishga harakat qiladi Lokk tabiatning holati birinchi navbatda davlat bo'lishi kerakligini tushunish uchun foydalidir.[5] Agar kimdir anarxiya jamiyatining davlati bo'lganidan yomonroq ekanligini ko'rsatsa, ikkinchisini unchalik yomon bo'lmagan alternativa sifatida tanlashimiz kerak. Ikkisini ishonchli tarzda taqqoslash uchun, uning fikriga ko'ra, nihoyatda pessimistik va ushbu jamiyatning o'ta optimistik qarashlariga e'tibor qaratish kerak emas.[6] Buning o'rniga, quyidagilar kerak:

[...] nodavlat vaziyatga e'tibor qarating, unda odamlar odatda axloqiy cheklovlarni qondirishadi va umuman o'zlari kerak bo'lganidek harakat qilishadi [...] bu tabiat holati oqilona umid qiladigan eng yaxshi anarxiya holatidir. Demak, uning mohiyati va nuqsonlarini o'rganish anarxiya emas, balki davlat bo'lishi kerakligi to'g'risida qaror qabul qilish uchun juda muhimdir.

— Robert Nozik, Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, Reprint Edition 2013, p. 5

Nozikning rejasi avval bunday siyosiy bo'lmagan jamiyatdagi axloqiy jihatdan yo'l qo'yiladigan va yo'l qo'yib bo'lmaydigan harakatlarni va ayrim shaxslar tomonidan ushbu cheklovlarni buzilishi qanday qilib davlat paydo bo'lishiga olib kelishini tasvirlashdir. Agar shunday bo'ladigan bo'lsa, bu hech qanday davlat haqiqatan ham shu tarzda rivojlanmagan bo'lsa ham tashqi ko'rinishini tushuntiradi.[7]

U (masalan, "Nega tabiat nazariyasi?" Bo'limining 1-bobida) o'zining sayozligini qayd etganda, ehtimol, eng katta bo'rtiqqa ishora qiladi "ko'rinmas qo'l "minimal holatni tushuntirish, uni a Lokk tabiatning holati, unda individual huquqlar mavjud, ammo ularni amalga oshirish va qaror chiqarish uchun davlat yo'q. Garchi bu uning uchun siyosiy sohani "fundamental tushuntirish" sifatida hisoblansa-da, chunki siyosat siyosiy bo'lmaganligi bilan izohlanadi, ammo bu uning keyingi "nasabiy" ambitsiyasiga nisbatan sayozdir (yilda Ratsionallikning tabiati va ayniqsa O'zgarishlar ) siyosiy va axloqiy jihatdan bizning ovchi ajdodlarimiz va undan tashqarida kuzatilishi mumkin bo'lgan foydali kooperativ amaliyotlarga murojaat qilish orqali tushuntirish. The nasabnoma Nozikka faqat taxmin qilingan narsalar haqida tushuntirish beradi Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya: individual huquqlarning asosiy maqomi. Ijodkorlik uning talqinida omil bo'lmadi.[iqtibos kerak ]

Tabiatning holati

Nozik ushbu bobni. Ning ba'zi xususiyatlarini sarhisob qilish bilan boshlaydi Lokk tabiatning holati.[8] Muhimi, har bir shaxs boshqa shaxs o'z huquqlarini buzgan taqdirda o'zi tomonidan tovon puli olishga haqlidir.[9] Huquqbuzarni jazolash ham maqbuldir, lekin faqat uning (yoki boshqalarning) bunday qilishiga yo'l qo'ymaslik sharti bilan. Lokkning o'zi tan olganidek, bu bir nechta muammolarni keltirib chiqaradi va Nozik ularni ixtiyoriy kelishuvlar bilan qay darajada hal qilish mumkinligini ko'rib chiqmoqchi. Lokk tabiat holatidagi "muammolar" ga oqilona munosabat o'zaro himoyalanadigan uyushmalar tashkil etish,[10] unda har qanday a'zoning chaqirig'iga hamma javob beradi. Hamma doim qo'ng'iroqda bo'lishi va assotsiatsiyani "qoniqarli yoki paranoyak" bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan a'zolar chaqirishi noqulay.[10] Yana bir muhim noqulaylik bir uyushmaning ikki a'zosi o'rtasida nizo yuzaga kelganda yuz beradi. Ushbu muammoni hal qiladigan oddiy qoidalar mavjud bo'lsa-da (masalan, aralashmaslik siyosati[11]) ko'pchilik kimning da'volari to'g'riligini hal qilish uchun tizimlarni qurishga harakat qiladigan uyushmalarni afzal ko'rishadi.

Qanday bo'lmasin, har kimning qo'ng'iroq qilish muammosi ba'zi tadbirkorlarning himoya xizmatlarini sotish bilan shug'ullanishini talab qiladi[11] (mehnat taqsimoti ). Bu ("bozor bosimi, miqyos tejamkorligi va o'z-o'zini oqilona qiziqtirish orqali") odamlarni ma'lum bir hududdagi eng kuchli uyushmaga qo'shilishiga yoki ba'zi birlashmalar o'xshash kuchga ega bo'lishiga olib keladi va shuning uchun kurashish xarajatlaridan qochib, nizolarni hal qilish uchun sudya yoki sud vazifasini bajaradigan uchinchi shaxs.[12] Ammo barcha amaliy maqsadlar uchun ushbu ikkinchi holat bitta himoya assotsiatsiyasiga tengdir. Va bu "minimal holatga juda o'xshash" narsa.[13] Nozikning fikriga ko'ra, Lokk ijtimoiy shartnomani fuqarolik jamiyati va pulni o'rnatish uchun zarur deb tasavvur qilgan.[14] U ko'rinmas qo'l bilan tushuntirishlarni afzal ko'radi, ya'ni shaxslar o'rtasidagi ixtiyoriy kelishuvlar juda uzoq naqshlarni yaratadi ular ishlab chiqilganga o'xshaydi aslida hech kim qilmagan.[15] Ushbu tushuntirishlar "tushuntiriladigan hodisalarni tashkil etuvchi tushunchalardan foydalanishni minimallashtirish" ma'nosida foydalidir. Hozirgacha u bunday "ko'rinmas qo'l" dominant uyushmaga olib borishini ko'rsatdi, ammo shaxslar baribir o'z huquqlarini adolatli bajarishi mumkin. Ammo bu himoya agentligi hali davlat emas. Bobning oxirida Nozik davlat nima ekanligini aniqlashning ba'zi muammolariga ishora qiladi, ammo u shunday deydi:

Maqsadimiz uchun, davlat mavjud bo'lishining zaruriy sharti shundaki, u (ba'zi bir shaxs yoki tashkilot) imkoniyati boricha [...] u kashf etgan har bir kishini jazolashini e'lon qilishi demakdir. uning aniq ruxsatisiz kuch ishlatgan bo'lishi.

— Robert Nozik, Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 24

Himoyalash agentliklari hozircha bunday xabar berishmayapti.[16] Bundan tashqari, u barcha mijozlariga bir xil darajada himoya qilmaydi (ular turli darajadagi qamrovlarni sotib olishlari mumkin) va xizmatni sotib olmaydigan shaxslar ("mustaqillar") umuman hech qanday himoyaga ega emaslar (parchalanish effektlari chetga). Bu hatto sayyohlar odatda himoya oladigan davlatlar bilan tajribamizga ziddir.[17] Shu sababli, hukmron bo'lgan himoya agentligi kuch ishlatish monopoliyasiga ega emas va o'z hududidagi barcha odamlarni himoya qila olmaydi.

Axloqiy cheklovlar va davlat

Nozik soatiga yetib keladi tungi qorovul davlati ning klassik liberalizm o'z mijozlarini boshqalarning himoyasi uchun to'lashga majbur qilishning ko'rinadigan qayta taqsimlash tartibining taqsimlanmagan sabablari borligini ko'rsatib nazariya. U ultraminimal davlat deb ataydigan narsani aniqlaydi, bu ko'rinishda qayta taqsimlanadigan xususiyatga ega bo'lmaydi, lekin huquqlarni amalga oshirishga ruxsat berilgan yagona narsa bo'ladi.[18] Ushbu ultraminimal davlat tarafdorlari huquqlarning buzilishini (u nima deb atashini) og'irlik darajasiga tushirishga urinish sababli himoya qilmaydi. utilitarizm huquqlar[19]). Bu g'oya, masalan, kimdir aybsiz deb bilgan boshqa odamni jazolashi, aks holda yanada ko'proq huquqlarni buzadigan olomonni tinchlantirish uchun degan ma'noni anglatadi.[20] Bu ultraminimal holat ortidagi falsafa emas.[21] Aksincha, uning tarafdorlari o'z a'zolarining huquqlarini o'zlariga etkazish mumkin bo'lgan narsalarning cheklovidir. Ushbu cheklangan ko'rinish asosni aks ettiradi Kantian shaxslar maqsadlar va shunchaki vositalar emas, shuning uchun huquqlar degan tamoyil bitta huquqlari buzilishining oldini olish uchun shaxsni buzish mumkin emas boshqa odamlar.[22] Unda qaysi printsipni tanlashimiz kerak? Nozik qaysi biri yaxshiroq ekanligini isbotlashga urinmaydi. Buning o'rniga u Kantian qarashini afzal ko'rish uchun ba'zi sabablarni keltirib chiqaradi va keyinchalik klassik utilitarizm bilan bog'liq muammolarga ishora qiladi.

Uning Kantian printsipi foydasiga keltirgan birinchi sababi - bu alohida holat o'rtasidagi o'xshashlik (biz bundan keyin ko'proq foyda olish uchun hozir qurbon bo'lishni tanlaymiz)[23]) va ijtimoiy ish (biz ko'proq shaxsiy ijtimoiy manfaat uchun bir kishining manfaatlarini qurbon qiladigan) noto'g'ri:

Faqat individual odamlar, o'zlarining shaxsiy hayotlariga ega bo'lgan turli xil individual odamlar mavjud. Ushbu odamlardan birini boshqalar manfaati uchun ishlatish, undan foydalanadi va boshqalarga foyda keltiradi. Boshqa hech narsa yo'q. [...] Umumiy ijtimoiy yaxshilik haqida gapirish buni qoplaydi. (Qasddanmi?). Shaxsni shu tarzda ishlatish, uning alohida shaxs ekanligi, uning yagona hayoti ekanligini etarli darajada hurmat qilmaydi va hisobga olmaydi. U qurbonligidan haddan tashqari muvozanatlashtiradigan yaxshiliklarni olmaydi [...].

— Robert Nozik, Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 33

Ikkinchi sabab tajovuz qilmaslik tamoyiliga qaratilgan. Ushbu tamoyilni rad etishga tayyormiz? Ya'ni, ba'zi bir shaxslar ba'zi holatlarda ba'zi bir begunohlarga zarar etkazishi mumkinligini qabul qila olamizmi?[24] (Ushbu tajovuz qilmaslik printsipiga, albatta, o'zini himoya qilish va ehtimol u ta'kidlagan boshqa ba'zi maxsus holatlar kirmaydi[25]).

Keyin u utilitarizm bilan bog'liq ba'zi muammolarni fosh qilib, baxtni utilitar hisoblashda hayvonlarni hisobga olish kerakmi, agar bu hayvon turiga bog'liq bo'lsa, ularni og'riqsiz o'ldirish qabul qilinsa va hokazolarni muhokama qilsa.[26] U utilitarizm hatto hayvonlar bilan ham mos emas deb hisoblaydi.

Ammo Nozikning klassik utilitarizmga qarshi cheklash nuqtai nazarining eng taniqli argumenti va faqat his qilingan tajriba muhim degan fikr uning Tajriba mashinasi fikr tajribasi.[27] Bu istagan har qanday xayoliy tajribani keltirib chiqaradi, ammo mavzuni biror narsa qilishiga yoki biror narsa bilan aloqa qilishiga to'sqinlik qiladi. Illyuziya uchun faqat oldindan dasturlashtirilgan asab stimulyatsiyasi mavjud. Nozik har birimiz tajriba mashinasiga abadiy ulanishdan qochishimiz uchun sabab bo'lgan sezgi bilan shug'ullanadi.[28] Aytish mumkin emaski, kasal bo'lib qolgan va qattiq azob chekayotganlar uchun "ulanish" har bir narsa uchun eng yaxshi tanlov bo'lmasligi mumkin. Fikrlash tajribasining mazmuni shundaki, ulanmaslikning muhim sababini aytib berish kerak, agar hamma narsa tajriba deb hisoblansa, u erda bo'lmasligi kerak.[29]

Taqiqlash, kompensatsiya va xavf

Ga olib keladigan protsedura tungi qorovul davlati o'z huquqlarini amalga oshirishiga to'sqinlik qiladigan a'zo bo'lmaganlarga tovon puli, o'z huquqi bilan taqqoslaganda xavfli deb hisoblaydigan ijro mexanizmi. Kompensatsiya a'zolari o'z huquqlarini bajara olmaslik oqibatida kelib chiqadigan har qanday kamchiliklarni bartaraf etadi. A'zo bo'lmaganlar oqilona ehtiyot choralarini ko'rishadi va birlashmaning o'z huquqlarini amalga oshirishni taqiqlashi bo'yicha faoliyatni to'g'rilashadi, assotsiatsiya a'zoni befarqlik egri chizig'idagi pozitsiyasi orasidagi farqga teng miqdorda haqiqiy mavqeidan yuqoriga ko'tarishi shart. agar u taqiq bo'lmaganida va uning asl mavqeini egallagan bo'lsa.

Nisbatan kompensatsiya printsipi deb ataydigan xulosani chiqarish - bu nisbatan zich bobning maqsadi. Ushbu g'oya keyingi bob uchun muhim ahamiyatga ega bo'lib, u erda qanday qilib (hech qanday huquq buzilmasdan) ultraminimal davlat (huquqlarni ijro etish monopoliyasiga ega bo'lgan davlat) minimal davlat (shuningdek, barcha shaxslarni himoya qilishni ta'minlaydi). Bunga ba'zi odamlar boshqalarni himoya qilish uchun pul to'lash yoki ba'zi odamlar himoya qilish uchun pul to'lashni jalb qilishlari mumkin bo'lganligi sababli, munozaraning asosiy elementi ushbu harakatlar tabiiy huquq nuqtai nazaridan oqlanishi mumkinmi. Shuning uchun ushbu bobda kompensatsiya nazariyasining rivojlanishi.

U kimdir "chegarani kesib o'tsa" nima bo'ladi, degan savolni keng berishni boshlaydi[30] (masalan, jismoniy zarar[31]). Agar bu tegishli shaxsning roziligi bilan amalga oshirilsa, hech qanday muammo tug'ilmaydi. Lokdan farqli o'laroq, Nozik bu borada "paternalistik" qarashga ega emas. U har kimning qo'lidan kelishiga ishonadi har qanday narsa o'ziga yoki boshqalarga unga xuddi shu narsani qilishlariga imkon bering.[31]

Ammo agar B A chegaralarini roziligisiz kesib o'tsa-chi? Agar A ga kompensatsiya berilsa, bu yaxshi emasmi?

Nozik kompensatsiya bilan tushunadigan narsa, bu A-ni befarq qiladigan narsadir (ya'ni, A o'z qarorida xuddi shunday yaxshi bo'lishi kerak) oldin qonunbuzarlik va keyin kompensatsiya), agar A vaziyatni oldini olish uchun tegishli choralarni ko'rgan bo'lsa.[31] U kompensatsiya etarli emasligini ta'kidlaydi, chunki biroz odamlar ushbu chegaralarni buzadilar, masalan, o'zligini ko'rsatmasdan.[32] Shuning uchun, boshqa birovning huquqlarini buzganlarga qo'shimcha xarajatlar kelib chiqishi kerak. (Oddiylik uchun ushbu tazyiq haqidagi bahs ushbu maqolaning boshqa qismida keltirilgan).

Jazo masalasini muhokama qilgandan so'ng va adolatli jazo nazariyasi asosida barcha huquqlarning buzilishi to'xtatilmaydi[33] (u buni ma'qullaydi)[34] Noziks tovon puliga qaytadi. Shunga qaramay, nega biz undan keyin tovon puli to'lashi sharti bilan hech kimga biror narsa qilishga ruxsat bermaymiz? Ushbu nuqtai nazardan bir nechta muammolar mavjud.

Birinchidan, agar kimdir boshqa birovning huquqlarini buzganligi sababli katta foyda ko'rsa va u jabrlanuvchiga befarqlik darajasigacha tovon puli to'lasa, huquqbuzar bu beradigan barcha imtiyozlarni oladi.[35] Ammo, jinoyatchi bundan tashqari biron bir tovon puli to'lashi adolatli bo'lar edi, xuddi bozordagi kabi, xaridor shunchaki sotuvchi sotish yoki sotishdan befarq bo'ladigan darajada to'lamaydi. Odatda muzokaralar uchun joy bor, bu adolatli savol tug'diradi. Bozorda adolatli narx nazariyasini yaratishga qaratilgan har bir urinish muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchradi va Nozik bu masalani hal qilishga urinmaslikni afzal ko'radi.[36] Buning o'rniga, u iloji boricha, ushbu muzokaralar olib borilishi kerak, shunda tovon puli unga aloqador odamlar tomonidan hal qilinadi.[37] Ammo kimdir muzokara qila olmasa, yo'qmi, aniq emas barchasi kompensatsiya to'langan taqdirda aktlar qabul qilinishi kerak.

Ikkinchidan, tovon puli to'lanadigan bo'lsa, har qanday narsaga ruxsat berish barchasi odamlar qo'rqishadi.[38] Tasavvur qiling, kimdir har qanday vaqtda sizning qo'lingizni sindirib, keyin sizga tovon puli to'lashi mumkin. Boshqa odamlar ular bilan sodir bo'lishidan qo'rqishadi. Bu muhim muammolarni keltirib chiqaradi:

  • Hujumchilarga nafaqat zararni, balki bundan oldin qilingan hujum qo'rqmasligi uchun ham to'lashga majbur qilish, chunki tajovuzkor bu qo'rquv uchun yagona javobgar emas.[39]
  • Agar bu tovonni qoplashning yo'li bo'lsa edi, tajovuz qilmagan odamlar qo'rquvi sababli tovon puli to'lashlari mumkin edi.[40]
  • Haqiqatdan keyin hech kim qo'rquvni qoplay olmaydi, chunki biz qo'rquvni avvalgidek muhimroq deb eslaymiz.[41] Shu sababli, buning o'rniga Nozik "Bozor kompensatsiyasi" deb ataydigan narsani hisoblash kerak, bu muzokaralar haqiqatdan oldin amalga oshirilgan bo'lsa, kelishib olinadigan tovon puli.[42] Nozikning so'zlariga ko'ra, bu mumkin emas.[43]

Ushbu qiyinchiliklarning xulosasi, ayniqsa oxirgisi, ishlab chiqaradigan har qanday narsada umumiy qo'rquv taqiqlanishi mumkin.[44] Taqiqlanishning yana bir sababi shundaki, u odamlarni vosita sifatida ishlatishni anglatadi, bu esa u ilgari himoya qilgan Kantian printsipiga ziddir.

Ammo agar shunday bo'lsa, barcha chegaralarni kesib o'tishni taqiqlash haqida nima deyish mumkin bu oldindan rozilik berilmagan? Bu qo'rquv muammosini hal qiladi, lekin bu juda cheklangan bo'lar edi, chunki odamlar ba'zi chegaralarni tasodifan, bila turib qilmishlar va h.k.[45]) va ushbu rozilikni olish uchun xarajatlar juda katta bo'lishi mumkin (masalan, jabrlanuvchi o'rmonda sayohatda bo'lsa).[46] Unda nima bo'ladi? "Eng samarali siyosat eng kam aniq foydali harakatlarni kechiradi; bu har qanday kishiga oldindan kelishuvsiz qo'rquvsiz harakatlarni amalga oshirishga imkon beradi, agar oldindan kelishuvga erishish uchun tranzaksiya xarajatlari, hatto kompensatsiya jarayoni xarajatlaridan biroz kattaroq bo'lsa. "[47]

E'tibor bering, agar ma'lum bir harakat zarar etkazish ehtimoli past bo'lsa, qo'rquvga olib kelmasligi mumkin. Ammo barcha xavfli harakatlar qo'shilganda, ularga zarar etkazish ehtimoli katta bo'lishi mumkin.[48] Bu muammolarni keltirib chiqaradi, bu kabi barcha tadbirlarni taqiqlash (ular juda xilma-xil bo'lishi mumkin) juda cheklangan. Aniq javob, ya'ni chegara V qiymatini o'rnatish, agar huquqlar buzilgan bo'lsa [49] (bu erda p - zarar etkazish ehtimoli va H - etkazilishi mumkin bo'lgan zarar miqdori) tabiiy huquq pozitsiyasiga to'g'ri kelmaydi. O'z so'zlari bilan:

Muammoning ushbu konstruktsiyasidan biron bir kishining bir tiyin yoki pinni yoki boshqa biron bir narsani o'g'irlash uning huquqlarini buzishi bilan bog'liq bo'lgan urf-odatlardan foydalanib bo'lmaydi. Ushbu urf-odat, agar yuzaga kelishi mumkin bo'lgan zarar bo'lsa, zararni chegarasini pastki chegara sifatida tanlamaydi

— Robert Nozik, Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 75

To'g'ri, ba'zi hollarda sug'urta echimlari ushbu holatlarda ishlaydi va u ba'zilarini muhokama qiladi.[50] Ammo sug'urta sotib olishga yoki boshqa odamlarning xatti-harakatlari uchun uning o'rnini qoplashga imkoni bo'lmagan odamlar bilan nima qilasiz? Siz ularga buni qilishni taqiqlaysizmi?

Ko'p sonli harakatlar boshqalar uchun xavfni oshirishi sababli, bunday yopiq harakatlarni taqiqlagan jamiyat erkin jamiyatning rasmiga erkinlik foydasiga prezumptsiyani o'zida mujassam etgani kabi mos kelmaydi, chunki ular ostida odamlar o'zlari qilmaguncha xatti-harakatlar qilishlari mumkin edi. Belgilangan yo'llar bilan boshqalarga zarar etkazmang. [...] xavfli xatti-harakatlarni taqiqlash (ular moliyaviy tomondan ochilganligi yoki o'ta xavfli bo'lganligi sababli) shaxsning harakat qilish erkinligini cheklaydi, garchi xatti-harakatlar boshqalarga hech qanday xarajatlarni talab qilmasa ham.

— Robert Nozik, Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 78

(Bu keyingi bobda muhim oqibatlarga olib keladi, keyingi qismga qarang).

Shunday qilib, Nozikning xulosasi, odatda amalga oshiriladigan maxsus xavfli harakatlarni taqiqlashdir va taqiqdan mahrum bo'lgan shaxsga kompensatsiya berish.[51] U buni kompensatsiya printsipi deb ataydi.[52] Masalan, epileptiklarni haydashni taqiqlashga yo'l qo'yiladi, ammo ular kam ta'minlanganlar (shofyorlar, taksilar) talab qiladigan xarajatlar uchun to'liq qoplangandagina.[53]). Bu faqat xavfsizlik kuchaytirilganidan foyda ushbu xarajatlardan oshib ketgandagina sodir bo'ladi.[54] Ammo bu muzokara emas. Uning o'xshashligi shantaj:[55] biron bir kishiga yoki guruhga, aks holda unga hech qanday foyda keltirmaydigan ishni qilishiga yo'l qo'ymaslik uchun pul to'lash to'g'ri emas. Nozik bunday operatsiyalarni "samarasiz faoliyat" deb hisoblaydi.[56] Xuddi shunday, (xulosa qilish kerak) epileptik uchun boshqa odamlar uchun xavfli narsa qilmaganligi uchun to'lovni muhokama qilish to'g'ri emas.

Biroq, Nozik ushbu printsip bilan bog'liq ba'zi muammolarga ishora qilmoqda. Birinchidan, u bu harakatni "umuman bajarish" kerakligini aytadi. Ushbu malakaning maqsadi shundaki, ekssentrik va xavfli faoliyatni qoplash kerak emas.[57] Uning ekstremal misoli - bu boshqalardan so'ramay, boshqalarning boshi bilan rus ruletini o'ynashdan zavqlanadigan kishi.[58] Bunday harakatlar taqiqlangan bo'lishi kerak, hech qanday malakaga ega emas. Ammo har qanday narsani "umuman bajarilgan" harakat sifatida belgilash mumkin.[59] Rossiya ruletini "ko'ngil ochish" deb hisoblash mumkin va shuning uchun uning o'rnini qoplash mumkin.[60] Ikkinchidan, agar maxsus va xavfli harakatlar inson o'zi uchun muhim bo'lgan narsani qila oladigan yagona usul bo'lsa (masalan, agar faqat Biror kishi ko'ngil ochishi yoki o'zini o'zi boqishi mumkin), ehtimol buning o'rnini qoplash kerak.[61] Uchinchidan, umuman olganda, u kamchiliklar nazariyasi yo'qligini tan oladi,[62] shuning uchun "maxsus kamchilik" deb hisoblanadigan narsa aniq emas.

Buni yanada rivojlantirish kerak, chunki tabiat holatida ushbu atamalarni qanday belgilash to'g'risida qaror qabul qilishga vakolat yo'q (89-betdagi o'xshash masalani muhokama qilishga qarang).

[...] na printsipni aniq aytib berishimiz kerak. Bizga faqat kompensatsiya printsipi kabi ba'zi bir printsiplarning to'g'riligini talab qilish kerak, ular uchun taqiqlangan xavfli faoliyatni taqiqlashni talab qiladiganlar. Tafsilotlari to'liq ishlab chiqilmagan printsipni taqdim etish va undan keyin foydalanish men uchun mutlaqo qulay emas [...]. Men printsipni biroz loyqa holatda qoldirishni boshlashning o'zi yaxshi, deb da'vo qilishim mumkin edi; asosiy savol - shunga o'xshash biror narsa qiladimi.

— Robert Nozik, Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 87

Davlat

Mustaqil shaxsga odil sudlovni amalga oshirish usullaridan foydalanish taqiqlanishi mumkin, agar:[63]

  • Uning usuli juda xavfli ("ehtimol u choy barglari bilan maslahatlashadi")
  • U noma'lum xavflilik usulini qo'llaydi.

Shunga qaramay, mustaqil kishi boshqalarga katta xavf tug'dirmaydigan usuldan foydalanishi mumkin, ammo agar boshqalarga o'xshash protseduralar qo'llanilsa, umumiy xavf qabul qilinadigan chegaradan oshib ketishi mumkin. Bunday holatda kim buni to'xtatishi kerakligi haqida qaror qabul qilishning iloji yo'q, chunki hech kim shaxsan javobgar emas va shuning uchun uni to'xtatishga hech kimning haqqi yo'q. Mustaqillar ushbu savollarni hal qilish uchun birlashishlari mumkin, ammo ular umumiy xavfni chegaradan past tutish mexanizmiga rozi bo'lishsa ham, har bir shaxs bitimdan chiqish uchun rag'batga ega bo'ladi. A bo'lish mantiqiyligi sababli ushbu protsedura bajarilmaydi bepul chavandoz boshqalarning cheklanishidan foydalanib, o'zlarining xavfli ishlarini davom ettirish kabi guruhlarga. Mashhur munozarada u rad etadi H. L. A. Xart erkin sudlovchilar bilan muomala uchun "adolat printsipi", bu ularni o'zlari foyda ko'radigan kooperatsiya amaliyotiga axloqan bog'laydi. Biror kishi oldindan beriladigan kelishuvsiz beriladigan nafaqalarni undirib, undirib bo'lmaydi. Ammo Nozik buni rad etadi.

Agar adolat tamoyili ishlamasa, buni qanday hal qilishimiz kerak? Tabiiy-huquqiy an'ana biz qanday protsessual huquqlarga ega ekanligimizni aniqlashda katta yordam bermaydi.[64] Nozik, barchamiz bizni aybdor ekanligimizni hal qilishda adolatli va ishonchli usul qo'llanilishini bilishga haqlimiz, deb taxmin qiladi. Agar ushbu ma'lumot ochiq bo'lmasa, biz qarshilik ko'rsatishga haqlimiz. Agar biz ushbu protsedurani ishonchsiz yoki adolatsiz deb topsak, berilgan ma'lumotlarni ko'rib chiqamiz. Biz hatto jarayonda ishtirok etmasligimiz mumkin, hatto buni qilish maqsadga muvofiq bo'lsa ham.[65]

Ushbu huquqlarni qo'llash himoya idorasiga topshirilishi mumkin, bu boshqalarning ishonchliligi yoki adolat nuqtai nazaridan qabul qilinishi mumkin bo'lmagan usullarni qo'llashiga to'sqinlik qiladi. Ehtimol, u qabul qilingan usullarning ro'yxatini e'lon qiladi. Ushbu taqiqni buzgan kishi jazolanadi.[66] Har bir inson bunga haqli va boshqa kompaniyalar biznesga kirishga urinishlari mumkin edi, ammo hukmron himoya agentligi ushbu taqiqni amalga oshirishga qodir bo'lgan yagona agentdir. Bu o'z mijozlariga hech qanday qabul qilinmagan protsedura qo'llanilmasligiga kafolat beradigan yagona narsa.[67]

Ammo yana bir muhim farq bor: himoya agentligi buni amalga oshirishda ba'zi mustaqillarni ahvolga tushib qolishi mumkin. Xususan, taqiqlangan usuldan foydalanadigan va uning xizmatlariga katta kuch sarflay olmaydigan mustaqil shaxslar (yoki hatto nima bo'lishidan qat'iy nazar to'lash uchun juda kambag'al). Ushbu odamlar agentlikning to'lov mijozlari hisobidan bo'ladi.

Oldingi bobda biz boshqalarga o'zlariga yuklatilgan kamchiliklar o'rnini qoplash zarurligini ko'rdik. Bundan tashqari, biz ushbu tovon faqat kam ta'minlanganlarga qo'shimcha xarajatlarni, aks holda u sarf qiladigan xarajatlardan tashqari bo'lishini ko'rdik (bu holda u talab qilmoqchi bo'lgan xavfli / noma'lum protsedura xarajatlari). Shunga qaramay, agar u mustaqillik kamchiliklarni qoplaganidan keyin uni to'lay olmasa, bu oddiy himoya siyosatining to'liq narxiga teng bo'ladi.[68]

Shuningdek, bu erda hisoblanadigan himoya xizmatlari qat'iyan qarshi to'laydigan mijozlar, chunki aynan shu shaxslar ularga qarshi birinchi navbatda himoyasiz edi.[69]

Ammo bu kompensatsiya mexanizmi boshqa bepul haydash muammosini keltirib chiqarmaydimi? Nozikning aytishicha, bu unchalik ko'p emas, chunki tovon faqat "o'z-o'zini himoya qilish uchun pul xarajatlari summasiga qo'shimcha ravishda, odam bemalol to'lashi mumkin bo'lgan har qanday summani qo'shganda, noan'anaviy siyosat narxiga teng keladigan miqdor" dir. Bundan tashqari, yuqorida aytganimizdek, bu nafaqat pul to'laydigan mijozlardan, balki kompensatsiya qilingan mijozlar va boshqa mustaqil shaxslardan himoya qiladigan befarq siyosatdir. Shuning uchun, qancha erkin chavandozlar bo'lsa, to'liq himoya siyosatini sotib olish shunchalik muhimroq bo'ladi.[70]

Hozirda mavjud bo'lgan narsalar davlatga o'xshashligini ko'rishimiz mumkin. 3-bobda Nozik davlat bo'lishi uchun tashkilot tomonidan bajarilishi kerak bo'lgan ikkita shart quyidagicha edi:

  1. Kuch ishlatish monopoliyasi.
  2. Umumiy himoya.

Himoya agentligi ushbu ikki sharoitdagi holatga o'xshaydi. Birinchidan, bu a amalda monopoliya[71] ilgari aytib o'tilgan raqobatbardosh ustunlik tufayli. Uning bo'lishga alohida huquqi yo'q, shunchaki.

"Bizning tushuntirishimiz buni to'g'ri deb taxmin qilmaydi yoki da'vo qilmaydi. Hatto hech kim qudratli odamda a deb o'ylamasa ham, majburiy taqiqlarni amalga oshirishi mumkin maxsus taqiqlarning to'g'ri bajarilishini dunyoda o'z nuqtai nazarini anglash huquqi. "

— Robert Nozik, Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 118-119

Ikkinchidan, odamlarning aksariyati uning mijozlari. Mustaqillar bo'lishi mumkin, ammo u tasdiqlagan protseduralarni qo'llaydi. Bundan tashqari, ishonchsiz protseduralar bilan boshqa mustaqillarga ma'qul bo'lmagan usullarni qo'llaydigan mustaqillar ham bo'lishi mumkin.

Ushbu shartlar muhimdir, chunki ular "individualist anarxist" uchun har bir davlat majburiy ravishda noqonuniy deb da'vo qilish uchun asosdir. Kitobning ushbu qismi ba'zi bir davlatlar bir qator qonuniy qadamlar bilan tuzilishi mumkinligini ko'rsatib, ushbu da'voni rad etadi. The amalda monopoliya axloqan joiz qadamlar bilan vujudga keldi[72] va universal himoya, aslida qayta taqsimlanmaydi, chunki chegirma bilan pul yoki himoya xizmatlari ko'rsatiladigan odamlar bunga majburan etkazilgan kamchiliklar o'rnini qoplash sifatida haqli edilar. Shuning uchun davlat hech kimning huquqlarini buzmayapti.

E'tibor bering, bu biz emas, odatda tushunadigan holat. Ehtimol, u ko'proq kompaniyaga o'xshab tashkil qilingan va eng muhimi, hali ham mustaqillar mavjud.[73] Ammo, Nozik aytganidek:

«Shubhasiz, dominant agentlik [antropolog tomonidan ko'rsatilgan deyarli barcha xususiyatlarga ega Lourens Krader ]; va doimiy ma'muriy pesonnel bilan doimiy ma'muriy tuzilmalar, uni antropologlar fuqaroligi bo'lmagan jamiyat deb atagan narsadan - davlat yo'nalishi bo'yicha juda ajralib turadi ».

— Robert Nozik, Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 117

Biroq, u ushbu tashkilotning to'liq mos kelmasligini tan oladi Veberian davlatning ta'rifi an'anasi. Bu "zo'ravonlikning yagona vakili" emas, chunki ba'zi mustaqillar bir-birlariga aralashuvisiz zo'ravonlik qilishlari mumkin. Ammo bu yagona samarali zo'ravonlikning joizligi to'g'risida sudya. Shuning uchun, u "davlatga o'xshash shaxs" deb ham atash mumkin degan xulosaga keladi. [74]

Nihoyat, Nozik bizni shunchaki a bo'lishdan qadam deb ogohlantiradi amalda monopoliya (the ultraminimal holat) ba'zi mustaqil shaxslarning o'rnini qoplaydigan ushbu "davlatga o'xshash shaxs" ga aylanish minimal davlat) bu zarur emas. Kompensatsiya - bu axloqiy majburiyatdir.[75] Ammo bu Nozikning individualist anarxistga bo'lgan munosabatini bekor qilmaydi va bu ko'rinmas qo'l izohi bo'lib qoladi: axir, universal himoya qilish uchun agentlikka davlat bo'lish rejasi bo'lishi shart emas. Agar u qarzni himoya qilishga qaror qilsa, bu sodir bo'ladi.[76]

Davlat uchun argument bo'yicha qo'shimcha fikrlar

Oldindan qilingan hujumni muhokama qilish Nozikni o'zlarida noto'g'ri harakatlarni taqiqlashni istisno qiladigan printsipga olib keladi, garchi bu harakatlar keyinchalik xatolar sodir etish ehtimoli ko'proq bo'lsa ham. Bu unga himoya agentligining ishonchsiz yoki adolatsiz deb topilgan protseduralarga qarshi taqiqlari va boshqa haddan tashqari tuyulishi mumkin bo'lgan boshqa taqiqlar, masalan, boshqalarni boshqa himoya agentligiga qo'shilishni taqiqlash o'rtasida sezilarli farqni ta'minlaydi. Nozikning printsipi boshqalarni bunga imkon bermaydi.

Tarqatuvchi adolat

Nozikning Roulzning adolat nazariyasini muhokama qilishi libertarizm va liberalizm o'rtasida taniqli dialogni keltirib chiqardi. U huquqlar nazariyasini eskizlar asosida tuzadi, unda "Har kim tanlasa, har kim tanlasa" bo'ladi. U (1) sotib olishda adolat nazariyasini o'z ichiga oladi; (2) agar tuzatish bo'yicha adolat (1) buzilgan bo'lsa (tuzatish, ehtimol qayta taqsimlash choralarini talab qilishi mumkin); (3) xoldingi adolat va (4) o'tkazib berishda adolat. Sotib olishda adolatni o'z zimmasiga oladigan bo'lsak, egalik qilish huquqi (3) va (4) ning takroran qo'llanilishi vazifasidir. Nozikning huquq berish nazariyasi naqshsiz tarixiy printsipdir. Distributiv adolatning deyarli barcha boshqa tamoyillari (tenglik, utilitarizm) odil sudlov tamoyillari. Bunday tamoyillar shaklga amal qiladi, "har kimga ko'ra ..."

Nozik mashhur Vilt Chemberlen dalil odil taqsimotning namunali printsiplari erkinlikka mos kelmasligini ko'rsatishga urinishdir. U bizni jamiyatdagi dastlabki taqsimot D1, bizning namunaviy printsipimiz, masalan, Rolsning tanlovi bilan buyurtma qilingan deb taxmin qilishni so'raydi. Farq printsipi. Vilt Chemberlen juda mashhur basketbol Nozik bundan tashqari 1 million kishi Chemberlenga bir mavsum davomida basketbol o'ynashini tomosha qilish uchun har biriga 25 sent berishga tayyorligini taxmin qilmoqda (biz boshqa operatsiyalar sodir bo'lmaydi deb o'ylaymiz). Hozirda Chemberlenda 250 ming dollar bor, bu jamiyatdagi boshqa odamlarga qaraganda ancha katta. This new distribution in society, call it D2, obviously is no longer ordered by our favored pattern that ordered D1. However Nozick argues that D2 is just. For if each agent freely exchanges some of his D1 share with the basketball player and D1 was a just distribution (we know D1 was just, because it was ordered according to the favored patterned principle of distribution), how can D2 fail to be a just distribution? Thus Nozick argues that what the Wilt Chamberlain example shows is that no patterned principle of just distribution will be compatible with liberty. In order to preserve the pattern, which arranged D1, the state will have to continually interfere with people's ability to freely exchange their D1 shares, for any exchange of D1 shares explicitly involves violating the pattern that originally ordered it.

Nozick analogizes taxation with forced labor, asking the reader to imagine a man who works longer to gain income to buy a movie ticket and a man who spends his extra time on leisure (for instance, watching the sunset). What, Nozick asks, is the difference between seizing the second man's leisure (which would be forced labor) and seizing the first man's goods? "Perhaps there is no difference in principle," Nozick concludes, and notes that the argument could be extended to taxation on other sources besides labor. "End-state and most patterned principles of distributive justice institute (partial) ownership by others of people and their actions and labor. These principles involve a shift from the classical liberals' notion of self ownership to a notion of (partial) property rights in boshqa people."[77]

Nozick then briefly considers Locke's theory of acquisition. After considering some preliminary objections, he "adds an additional bit of complexity" to the structure of the entitlement theory by refining Locke's proviso that "enough and as good" must be left in common for others by one's taking property in an unowned object. Nozick favors a "Lokk sharti " that forbids appropriation when the position of others is thereby worsened. For instance, appropriating the only water hole in a desert and charging monopoly prices would not be legitimate. But in line with his endorsement of the historical principle, this argument does not apply to the medical researcher who discovers a cure for a disease and sells for whatever price he will. Nor does Nozick provide any means or theory whereby abuses of appropriation—acquisition of property when there is emas enough and as good in common for others—should be corrected.[78][iqtibos kerak ]

The Difference Principle

Nozick attacks John Rawls's Difference Principle on the ground that the well-off could threaten a lack of social cooperation to the worse-off, just as Rawls implies that the worse-off will be assisted by the well-off for the sake of social cooperation. Nozick asks why the well-off would be obliged, due to their inequality and for the sake of social cooperation, to assist the worse-off and not have the worse-off accept the inequality and benefit the well-off. Furthermore, Rawls's idea regarding morally arbitrary natural endowments comes under fire; Nozick argues that natural advantages that the well-off enjoy do not violate anyone's rights and that, therefore, the well-off have a right to them. He also states that Rawls's proposal that inequalities be geared toward assisting the worse-off is morally arbitrary in itself.

Asl pozitsiyasi

Nozick's opinions on historical entitlement ensures that he naturally rejects the Original Position since he argues that in the Original Position individuals will use an end-state principle to determine the outcome, whilst he explicitly states the importance of the historicity of any such decisions (for example punishments and penalties will require historical information).

Equality, envy, and exploitation

Nozick presses "the major objection" to theories that bestow and enforce positive rights to various things such as equality of opportunity, life, and so on. "These 'rights' require a substructure of things and materials and actions," he writes, "and 'other' people may have rights and entitlements over these."

Nozick concludes that "Markscha exploitation is the exploitation of people's lack of understanding of economics."

Demoktesis

Demoktesis is a thought-experiment designed to show the incompatibility of democracy with libertarianism in general and the entitlement theory specifically. People desirous of more money might "hit upon the idea of incorporating themselves, raising money by selling shares in themselves." They would partition such rights as which occupation one would have. Though perhaps no one sells himself into utter slavery, there arises through voluntary exchanges a "very extensive domination" of some person by others. This intolerable situation is avoided by writing new terms of incorporation that for any stock no one already owning more than a certain number of shares may purchase it. As the process goes on, everyone sells off rights in themselves, "keeping one share in each right as their own, so they can attend stockholders' meetings if they wish." The inconvenience of attending such meetings leads to a special occupation of stockholders' representative. There is a great dispersal of shares such that almost everybody is deciding about everybody else. The system is still unwieldy, so a "great consolidational convention" is convened for buying and selling shares, and after a "hectic three days (lo and behold!)" each person owns exactly one share in each right over every other person, including himself. So now there can be just one meeting in which everything is decided for everybody. Attendance is too great and it's boring, so it is decided that only those entitled to cast at least 100,000 votes may attend the grand stockholders' meeting. Va hokazo. Their social theorists call the system demoktesis (from Greek δῆμος demolar, "people" and κτῆσις ktesis, "ownership"), "ownership xalqning, odamlar tomonidan va odamlar uchun ", and declare it the highest form of social life, one that must not be allowed to perish from the earth. With this "eldritch tale" we have in fact arrived at a modern democratic state.

A framework for Utopia

The utopia mentioned in the title of Nozick's first book is a meta-utopia, a framework for voluntary migration between utopias tending towards worlds in which everybody benefits from everybody else's presence. This is meant to be the Lokk "tungi qorovul davlati " writ large. The state protects individual rights and makes sure that contracts and other market transactions are voluntary. The meta-utopian framework reveals what is inspiring and noble in this night-watchman function. They both contain the only form of social union that is possible for the atomistic rational agents of Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, fully voluntary associations of mutual benefit. The influence of this idea on Nozick's thinking is profound. Even in his last book, O'zgarishlar, he is still concerned to give priority to the mutual-benefit aspect of ethics. This coercively enforceable aspect ideally has an empty core in the game theorists' sense: the core of a game is all of those payoff vectors to the group wherein no subgroup can do better for itself acting on its own, without cooperating with others not in the subgroup. The worlds in Nozick's meta-utopia have empty cores. No subgroup of a utopian world is better off to emigrate to its own smaller world. The function of ethics is fundamentally to create and stabilize such empty cores of mutually beneficial cooperation. His view is that we are fortunate to live under conditions that favor "more-extensive cores", and less conquest, slavery, and pillaging, "less imposition of noncore vectors upon subgroups." Higher moral goals are real enough, but they are parasitic (as described in Tekshirilgan hayot, the chapter "Darkness and Light") upon mutually beneficial cooperation.

In Nozick's utopia if people are not happy with the society they are in they can leave and start their own community, but he fails to consider that there might be things that prevent a person from leaving or moving about freely.[79] Tomas Pogge states that items that are not socially induced can restrict people's options. Nozick states that for the healthy to have to support the handicapped imposes on their freedom, but Pogge argues that it introduces an inequality. This inequality restricts movement based on the ground rules Nozick has implemented, which could lead to feudalism and slavery, a society which Nozick himself would reject.[80] David Schaefer notes that Nozick himself claims that a person could sell himself into slavery, which would break the very ground rule that was created, restricting the movement and choices that a person could make.[81]

Other topics covered in the book

Retributive and deterrence theories of punishment

In chapter 4 Nozick discusses two theories of punishment: the deterrence and the retributive ones. To compare them, we have to take into account what is the decision that a potential infractor is facing. His decision may be determined by:

Where G are the gains from violating the victim's rights, p is the probability of getting caught and (C + D + E) are the costs that the infractor would face if caught. Specifically, C is full compensation to the victim, D are all the emotional costs that the infractor would face if caught (by being apprehended, placed on trial and so on) and E are the financial costs of the processes of apprehension and trial.

So if this equation is positive, the potential infractor will have an incentive to violate the potential victim's rights.

Here the two theories come into play. On a retributive justice framework, an additional cost R should be imposed to the transgressor that is proportional to the harm done (or intended to be done).

Xususan, , where r is the degree of responsibility the infractor has and .

Therefore, the decision a potential infractor would now face would be:

But this still won't deter all people. The equation would be positive if G is high enough or, more importantly, if p is low. That is, if it is very unlikely that you will be caught, you may very well choose to do it even if you have to face the new cost R. Therefore, retributive justice theories allow some failures of deterrence.

On the other hand, deterrence theories ("the penalty for a crime should be the minimal one necessary to deter commission of it") don't give enough guidance on how much deterrence should we aim at. If every single possible violation of rights is to be deterred, "the penalty will be set unacceptably high". The problem here is that the infractor may be punished well beyond the harm done to deter other people.

According to Nozick, the utilitarian response to the latest problem would be to raise the penalty until the point where more additional unhappiness would be created than would be saved to those who won't be victimized as a consequence of the additional penalty. But this won't do, according to Nozick, because it raises another problem: should the happiness of the victim have more weight in the calculation than the happiness of the felon? If so, how much?

He concludes that the retributive framework is better on grounds of simplicity.

Similarly, under the retributive theory, he contends that self-defense is appropriate even if the victim uses more force to defend him or herself. In particular, he proposes that the maximum amount of force that a potential victim can use is:

And in this case H is the harm that the victim thinks that the other is going to inflict upon him or herself. However, if he uses more force than f(H), that additional force has to be subtracted later from the punishment that the felon gets.

Animal rights and utilitarianism

Nozick discusses in chapter 3 whether animals have rights too or whether they can be used, and if the species of the animal says anything about the extent to which this can be done. He also analyzes the proposal "utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people".

Qabul qilish

Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya came out of a semester-long course that Nozick taught with Maykl Valzer da Garvard 1971 yilda chaqirilgan Capitalism and Socialism.[3][82] The course was a debate between the two; Nozick's side is in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and Walzer's side is in his Adolat sohalari (1983), in which he argues for "complex equality".

Myurrey Rotbard, an anarcho-capitalist, tanqid qiladi Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya in his essay "Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State"[83] on the basis that:

  1. No existing State has been immaculately conceived, and therefore Nozick, on his own grounds, should "advocate anarchism" and then "wait for his State to develop".
  2. Even if any State had been so conceived, individual rights are inalienable and therefore no existing State could be justified.
  3. A correct theory of contracts is the title-transfer theory which states that the only valid and enforceable contract is one that surrenders what is, in fact, philosophically alienable, and that only specific titles to property are so alienable. Therefore no one can surrender his own will, his body, other persons, or the rights of his posterity.
  4. The risk and compensation principles are both fallacious and result in unlimited despotism.
  5. Compensation, in the theory of punishment, is simply a method of trying to recompense the victim after a crime occurs; it can never justify the initial violation of individual rights.
  6. Nozick’s theory of “nonproductive” exchanges is invalid since in economic theory all voluntary exchanges are by definition productive, so that the prohibition of "nonproductive" risky activities and hence the ultra-minimal state falls on this account alone.
  7. Contrary to Nozick, there are no “procedural rights,” and therefore no way to get from his theory of risk and nonproductive exchange to the compulsory monopoly of the ultra-minimal state.
  8. Nozick’s minimal state would, on his own grounds, justify a maximal State as well.
  9. The only “invisible hand” process, on Nozick’s own terms, would move society from his minimal State "back to anarchism".[84]

The American legal scholar Arthur Allen Leff criticized Nozick in his 1979 article "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law".[85] Leff stated that Nozick built his entire book on the bald assertion that "individuals have rights which may not be violated by other individuals", for which no justification is offered. According to Leff, no such justification is possible either. Any desired ethical statement, including a negation of Nozick's position, can easily be "proved" with apparent rigor as long as one takes the licence to simply establish a grounding principle by assertion. Leff further calls "ostentatiously unconvincing" Nozick's proposal that differences among individuals will not be a problem if like-minded people form geographically isolated communities.

Faylasuf Jan Narveson described Nozick's book as "brilliant".[86]

Kato instituti o'rtoq Tom G. Palmer deb yozadi Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya is "witty and dazzling", and offers a strong criticism of Jon Rols "s Adolat nazariyasi. Palmer adds that,

"Largely because of his remarks on Rawls and the extraordinary power of his intellect, Nozick's book was taken quite seriously by academic philosophers and political theorists, many of whom had not read contemporary libertarian (or classical liberal) material and considered this to be the only articulation of libertarianism available. Since Nozick was writing to defend the limited state and did not justify his starting assumption that individuals have rights, this led some academics to dismiss libertarianism as 'without foundations,' in the words of the philosopher Tomas Nagel. When read in light of the explicit statement of the book's purpose, however, this criticism is misdirected".[87]

Ozodlik muallifi Devid Boaz deb yozadi Anarxiya, shtat va Utopiya, together with Rothbard's Yangi Ozodlik uchun (1973) va Ayn Rand 's essays on political philosophy, "defined the 'hard-core' version of modern libertarianism, which essentially restated Spenser 's law of equal freedom: Individuals have the right to do whatever they want to do, so long as they respect the equal rights of others."[88]

In the article "Social Unity and Primary Goods", republished in his To'plangan hujjatlar (1999), Rawls notes that Nozick handles Sen's liberal paradox in a manner that is similar to his own. However, the rights that Nozick takes to be fundamental and the basis for regarding them to be such are different from the equal basic liberties included in justice as fairness and Rawls conjectures that they are thus not inalienable.

Yilda Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy (2007), Rawls notes that Nozick assumes that just transactions are "justice preserving" in much the same way that logical operations are "truth preserving". Thus, as explained in Tarqatuvchi adolat above, Nozick holds that repetitive applications of "justice in holdings" and "justice in transfer" preserve an initial state of justice obtained through "justice in acquisition or rectification". Rawls points out that this is simply an assumption or presupposition and requires substantiation. In reality, he maintains, small inequalities established by just transactions accumulate over time and eventually result in large inequalities and an unjust situation.

Shuningdek qarang

Adabiyotlar

  1. ^ "The National Book Awards – 1975". Milliy kitob fondi. 2007. Arxivlangan asl nusxasi 2011 yil 9 sentyabrda. Olingan 9 yanvar 2012.
  2. ^ "The Hundred Most Influential Books Since the War". Times Literary Supplement. October 6, 1995. Archived from asl nusxasi on 4 December 2011. Olingan 8-noyabr 2011.
  3. ^ a b The United States in the World – Just Wars and Just Societies: An Interview with Michael Walzer, yilda Izlar[doimiy o'lik havola ], Volume 7, Number 1, 2003
  4. ^ Schaefer, David Lewis. "Robert Nozick and the Coast of Utopia". Nyu-York Quyoshi. Olingan 11 iyul 2015.
  5. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 4. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  6. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 5. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  7. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 7. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  8. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 10. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  9. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 10. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  10. ^ a b Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 12. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  11. ^ a b Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 13. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  12. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 16. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  13. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 17. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  14. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 18. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  15. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 19. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  16. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 23. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  17. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 25. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  18. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 26. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  19. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 30. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  20. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 29. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  21. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. 27-28 betlar. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  22. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. 30-31 betlar. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  23. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 32. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  24. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 34. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  25. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. 34-35 betlar. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  26. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. 35-42 betlar. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  27. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 42. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  28. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 43. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  29. ^ "[...] we need merely to note the intricacy of the question of what matters odamlar uchun other than their experiences" Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 45. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  30. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 57. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  31. ^ a b v Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 58. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  32. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 59. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  33. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 61. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  34. ^ "Constructing counterexamples to this bizarre view [the utilitarian deterrence theorist's] is left as an exercise for the reader",Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 62. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  35. ^ See "Dividing the benefits of exchange" Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 63. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  36. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 64. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  37. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 65. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  38. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 66. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  39. ^ "[...] a victim's fear is not caused by the person who assaulted" Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 66. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  40. ^ "And who will compensate the other apprehensive persons [...]?" Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 66. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  41. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 68. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  42. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 68. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  43. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 68. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  44. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 71. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  45. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 71. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  46. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 72. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  47. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 73. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  48. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 73. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  49. ^ "[...] an action violates someone's rights if its expected harm to him (that is, the probability of harm to him multiplied by a measure of that harm) is greater than, or equal to, the specified value" Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 74. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  50. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. 76-78 betlar. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  51. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 81. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  52. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 82. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  53. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 79. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  54. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 83. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  55. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 85. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  56. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 84. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  57. ^ "This principle is meant to cover forbidding the epileptic to drive while excluding the cases of involuntary Russian roulette and the special manufacturing process". Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 82. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  58. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 79. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  59. ^ "This possibility of diverse descriptions of actions prevents easy application of the principle as stated" Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 82. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  60. ^ "Playing Russian roulette is a more dangerous way of "having fun", which others are allowed to do [...] almost any two actions can be construed as the same or different [...]." Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 82. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  61. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 82. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  62. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 82. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  63. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 88. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  64. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 101. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  65. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 102. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  66. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 103. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  67. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 109. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  68. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. 111-112 betlar. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  69. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 113. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  70. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 113. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  71. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 108. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  72. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 115. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  73. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 117. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  74. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 118. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  75. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 119. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  76. ^ Nozick, Robert (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition. p. 119. ISBN  978-0465051007.
  77. ^ Kuper, Rayan. "Rand Paul compared taxation to slavery – and betrayed the emptiness of his political philosophy". Hafta. Olingan 11 iyul 2015.
  78. ^ R. Nozick Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 175.
  79. ^ Meadowcroft, [edited by] Ralf M. Bader, John (2011). The Cambridge companion to Nozick's Anarchy, state, and utopia. Kembrij: Kembrij universiteti matbuoti. p. 280. ISBN  978-0521120029. Olingan 11 iyul 2015.CS1 maint: qo'shimcha matn: mualliflar ro'yxati (havola)
  80. ^ Pogge, Thomas W. (1989). Roullarni anglash (3. bosma nashr.). Ithaca, N.Y .: Kornell universiteti matbuoti. p. 54. ISBN  978-0801496851. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2015-07-12. Olingan 11 iyul 2015.
  81. ^ Schaefer, David Lewis (18 December 2006). "Procedural Versus Substantive Justice: Rawls and Nozick". Ijtimoiy falsafa va siyosat. 24 (1): 178. doi:10.1017/S0265052507070070.
  82. ^ Suhbat bilan E. J. Dionne
  83. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1977). "Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State" (PDF). Libertarian Studies jurnali. 1 (1): 44–57.
  84. ^ "Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy". Stenford falsafa entsiklopediyasi. Olingan 11 iyul 2015.
  85. ^ Leff, Arthur Allen (December 1979). "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law". Dyuk huquqini ko'rib chiqish. 1979 (6): 1229–49. doi:10.2307/1372118. JSTOR  1372118.
  86. ^ Narveson, Jan (2001). Ozodlik g'oyasi. Broadview Press. p. 5. ISBN  978-1-55111-421-7.
  87. ^ Palmer, Tom G.; Boaz, David (1997). The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman. New York, New York: The Free Press. 417-18 betlar. ISBN  978-0-684-84767-2.
  88. ^ Boaz, David (1997). Libertarianism: A Primer. Nyu-York: Erkin matbuot. p.57. ISBN  978-0-684-84768-9.

Bibliografiya

  • Robinson, Dave & Groves, Judy (2003). Introducing Political Philosophy. Icon Books. ISBN  1-84046-450-X.
  • Nozik, Robert. Tekshirilgan hayot.

Tashqi havolalar