![]() ![]() Left and right libertarians alike are attracted to the thesis of self-ownership (SO) because, as Eric Mack says, they "believe that it best captures our common perception of the moral inviolability of persons". Since procedural rights are incompatible with a natural executive right, Nozickeans can argue that only the state can enforce individuals' rights without wronging anyone, thus refuting the anarchist. Nevertheless, Nozick's account of procedural rights contains clues for how to solve the problem. Compensation, however, cannot remedy the infringement, I argue, for either it is superfluous to Nozick's account of procedural rights, or it is made to play a role inconsistent with Nozick's liberal voluntarist commitments. ![]() Nozick's argument relies on an account of compensation to remedy the infringement of the non-consenters' procedural rights. Nozick attempts to show that even with a natural executive right, individuals need not actually consent to incur political obligations. ![]() Individuals acting within their natural rights can establish the minimal state without committing wrongdoing against those who disagree. Central to Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" is a defense of the legitimacy of the minimal state's use of coercion against anarchist objections. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |