Robert Nozick
His theory fro states is that they can legitimately be or become minimal. No actual existing state
matches his ideal of state. He sees the state as the guardian of individuals, self-ownership and
roghts of property. Nozick argues that there is a certain moral necessity to the way in which the
stages of the state ought to develop. Individuals have to act morally and pacifically.
The author states that always, in every state, like an invisible hand, one dominant protection
agency in each territorial area would emerge, in which most people would be included. The
dominant agency has the right to prohibit risky procedures against its clients, and this prohibition
establishes the “ultra-minimal state” in which one agency coercively prohibits all other agencies
from enforcing the rights of individuals. Nozick is arguing that power resides in a central body,
and this looks like a contradiction to his libertarianism.
Another important point in Nozick’s analysis is that the state can outlaw risky activities upon
compensation only if no one has the right to engage in “non-productive” activities or exchanges,
and that therefore they can legitimately be prohibited.
John Rawls
Rawls basic argument is that all social primary goods are to be distributed equally unless an
unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored. He is
influenced by John Locke, utilitarianists (JS Mill and Bentham) and Kant.
Rawls wanted to explore what a person’s “goods” were. Right is set down in social contract as
the same for everyone and can be summarized in his principles of justice: the first principle is
liberty, the second one concerns wealth.
An important statement is that there should be no differences except those that can be justified
on grounds of efficiency. Rawls gives a negative definition of “efficiency”. No state can be
called efficient if there is an alternative arrangement that improves the situation of some people
with no worsening of the situation of any of the other people. Rawls address the fact that there
will be situations where there will be a necessity for a priority of justice, and that the two
primary principles will be in conflict with each other. A solution to the conflict is the priority of
liberty.
Rawls maintains that rational people will unanimously adopt his principles of justice if their
reasoning is based on general considerations, without knowing anything about their own
personal situations. This procedure of reasoning without personal biases is called by Rawls “the
veil of ignorance”.
Civil disobedience is, by its nature, an act responding to injustices internal to a given society,
appealing to the public’s conception of justice. Civil disobedience can be justified if the
following three conditions are all met:
1. If the justice is substantial and clear;
2. If the normal appeals to the political majority have already been made in good faith and
have failed;
3. If there are not too many other minority groups with similarly valid claims.
1
