Libertarianism (Machan and Nozick)
Both Machan and Nozick are libertarians. Machan is concerned with what he calls “libertarian
justice” where Nozick is arguing specifically against egalitarian models of distributive justice.
Libertarians see themselves as the true heirs of Locke because they argue that the role of
government should be restricted to protecting individual rights by keeping law and order within
the state and defend against any foreign threats. In this sense the state is limited to the role of a
night watchman, i.e., the state watches over and protects the fundamental rights to life, liberty,
and property so we can feel secure, even in our sleep. However, this is the sole purpose of the
state, anything beyond the protection of fundamental liberties is excessive and should be
avoided.
Since individual freedom is all important to libertarians they agree with Mill that the
government has no right to impose particular moral values on anybody, or in any way restrict
people’s personal freedoms as long as they don’t harm others (in this sense libertarians would
disagree with many conservatives). But they strongly disagree with any egalitarian element in
utilitarianism that could be used to justify a redistribution of wealth and property. Any
government regulation designed to redistribute income or wealth through taxation or otherwise
libertarians see as an illegitimate interference with property rights, because people are being
coerced to give up something they have legitimately earned. Nozick goes as far as comparing
taxes to forced labor.
Machan thinks that all libertarians share the following beliefs:
1) Adult human beings are sovereign over their lives, actions, and belongings. They have the
rights to life liberty and property.
2) They have the responsibility in their communities to acknowledge and act in terms of this
fact vis a vis all others (i.e. you have to recognize that all others have the same rights)
3) They ought to develop institutions that assure the protection of their sovereignty, delegating
the required powers to agents (governments, private defense agencies, legal authorities or
some such special group) for this purpose.
4) Such delegation of power must itself occur without the violation of sovereignty or individual
rights.
5) The agencies to which the power of protecting rights is delegated must exercise this power
for the sole purpose of protecting these rights.
6) All concerns apart from the protection of individual rights must be acted on by members of
communities without the violation of those rights.
Points 1 and 2 reiterate Locke’s conception of natural rights. Points 3,4, and 5 echo Locke’s
concerns about usurping power and the abuse of power by a government. Point 6 would go
against redistribution of income if everybody does not voluntarily agree to such a redistribution,
because it would be a violation of people right to dispose of their property as they see fit.
Machan believes that only a society that prioritizes freedom above all else will allow humans to
flourish and pursue happiness.
Nozick agrees with Machan that any other conception of justice that determines how the
burdens and benefits in a society should be distributed ends up violating individual freedoms.
Nozick argues that other conceptions of justice, whether it be justice as fairness, harmony,
welfare, equality etc. all have in common that they use “patterning” and that they have a certain
ideal distribution as end state for their goal. By this Nozick means that these conceptions of
distributive justice ignore how people came to acquire their holdings (property, belongings,
assets), and instead use some principle (for example need) to determine how holdings should be
redistributed in order to achieve a better distribution (in this case an end state where there are no
needy people). Instead Nozick advocates what he calls an “entitlement theory”. The theory does
not ignore the historical dimension the other theories leave out. There are two basic principles,
justice in acquisition of holdings and justice in the transfer of holdings. If you have acquired
your holdings in a legitimate way, then you are entitled to do with those holdings whatever you
want, including transferring them to somebody else if you so desire. The theory has three
components:
1) A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is
entitled to that holding.
2) A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from
someone else who is entitled to that holding, is entitled to that holding.
3) No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2.
According to this theory any kind of tax scheme designed to narrow the gap between rich and
poor would be unjust, because even inherited wealth, if it was acquired by repeated application
of principle 1 and 2 from generation to generation is something you are entitled to (have a right
to). So even if you have done nothing to merit this wealth you are entitled to it and any attempt
to force you to share the wealth through taxation violates your property rights.
Nozick further argues that any egalitarian scheme of distribution is bound to fail, because an
unequal distribution is inevitable. He uses his Wilt Chamberlain story to illustrate this point.
Even if we start out with a totally equal distribution of holdings but enough people choose to
spend some of their money on basketball tickets to see Wilt play, then at the end of the season,
Wilt will be rich and the people who went to see him will all have a little less. From a totally
equal distribution we have gone to an unequal one. But since everybody acted voluntarily and all
holdings were transferred and acquired in a legitimate way there is no reason to say that the
unequal distribution is unjust. On the contrary, if you force Wilt to pay some of his earnings in
taxes because you want a more equal distribution then this is tantamount to forcing Wilt to work
for free for others. Nozick, in the “Tale of the Slave” argues that this is comparable to slavery.