Anarquia, Estado y Utopia by Robert Nozick, , available at Book Depository with free delivery worldwide. Tratado acerca de la funcion del Estado moderno, en el que se exponen algunas tesis para la posible creacion de un nuevo Estado minimo, asi como una. Get this from a library! Anarquía, estado y utopía. [Robert Nozick; Luis Diego Fernández].

Author: Kajile Tygojas
Country: Chile
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Personal Growth
Published (Last): 3 March 2011
Pages: 245
PDF File Size: 1.39 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.94 Mb
ISBN: 877-8-54464-884-7
Downloads: 77330
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vodal

As a preliminary rationalization of this review, it must be made explicit that this is also a critique. I could have effortlessly given this book a five-star rating, and it would have been nozicj. However, there is much research that is necessary, at least in my estimation, to attempting to read and comprehend the arguments made throughout the text. Prior to beginning the reading of Anarchy, Stat. Prior to beginning the reading of Anarchy, State, and Utopiaa look at the circumstances — both political and social — that Robert Nozick was writing in could go towards endeavoring to understand the intent behind the text.

A few years subsequent to the release of Anarchy, State, and Utopia utopla, the political philosophy scene had been awestruck with the release of John Rawls ‘ Ansrquia Theory of Justice.

This is the first step in preparation to reading the text.

Anarquía, Estado y Utopía by Robert Nozick (4 star ratings)

Further than this, Nozick provides an intriguing interpretation of rights as seen from his understanding of John Locke ‘s writings specifically, Second Treatise of Government. This, however, is not all that is discussed, or important, about the book.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is divided into three sections; just as the title indicates. In my opinion, Nozick has distorted Rawls in this section.

I will leave this assertion vague, for now. Pay special attention to where Nozick starts by making it clear that H. Out of the three sections of the book, this is the one that I think is the least important to read. In this section, Nozick leaves questions open-ended and suggests to look at other political thinkers to see if they had it right specifically, look at the reference to Tocqueville on p. Ultimately, this is a book I will keep, and refer to when appropriate.

I do think it is an indispensable reading for anyone interested in political philosophy. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again.

Anarquia, Estado y Utopia

Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Kindle Editionpages. National Book Award for Philosophy and Religion To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book. This book estxdo not yet featured on Esgado. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This book is a must-read in order to sharpen your thought. It is clear that this book is a rough sketches of what he was thinking Hozick wish more libertarians would actually read this book and acknowledge that this is not a road map for policy making or even directly anarqula to a non-hypothetical world. Nozick makes a powerful case against re-distribution, but even he points out that his theory only works where distribution has not been unjustly accomplished in the first place.

I don’t fault him for failing to propose a solution to this conundrum, because he doesn’t purport nozock do so and correctly states that estadk is for eac I wish more libertarians would actually read this book and acknowledge that this is not a road map for policy making or even directly transferable to a non-hypothetical world.

I don’t fault him for failing to propose a solution to this conundrum, because he doesn’t purport to do so and correctly states that it is for each individual society to address. Nozick also justifiably criticizes Rawls for making assumptions about first principles that are not self-evident; but Nozick does some of this as well and ultimately his step-by-step account of how justice is constituted is far simpler but no more persuasive than Rawls’s.


It’s just a lot more fun to read! Very thought provoking book. While the conclusions are mostly that which I cannot get on board with, as they rely quite heavily on a deontological foundation, many of the points made regarding rights, distributive justice, and the morality of compensation were all quite unique. Granted, I’m not particularly well-versed in these areas of political philosophy.

His attempted critiques of utilitarianism rstado go much beyond the classic ‘Utility Monster’ and ‘Experience Machine’ thoughts experiments Very thought provoking book. His attempted critiques of utilitarianism didn’t go much beyond the classic ‘Utility Monster’ and ‘Experience Machine’ thoughts experiments, both of which I’ve found to be unconvincing, though they are interesting to think about and shed light about our instincts and natural impulses, and how clearly they can diverge from logically moral conclusions.

I also didn’t find the moral credit he eztado to voluntary transactions, and his argument against the arbitrarily of natural assets, to be at the same level of many of the other arguments made here. Regardless, Nozick no doubt seems to have a lot to utopix regarding this intellectual realm, particularly for libertarians looking to strengthen their arguments.

Looking forward to reading his next book! This book is one of the most unusual in the history of political philosophy, and perhaps one of most brilliant. The author’s ideas are thought-provoking and highly original, and he asks the reader to consider arguments, rather than engaging in a “diatribe to convince” my words here.

The author creates a reading atmosphere of intellectual honesty, and this helps to soften the possible uneasiness that some readers might feel in encountering these kinds of arguments for the first time. Some may s This book is one anarquiz the most unusual in the history of political philosophy, and perhaps one of most brilliant. Some may seem radical and unpalatable for readers nosick other political persuasions, but any reader who is open to new ideas should find the reading highly interesting.

The political philosophy of libertarianism finds its best apology here, but the contents of the book, and the method of presentation will and has found application to other political philosophies, and to legal philosophy. In the first chapter, the author asks the reader to consider what he calls the “state-of-nature theory”. This Lockean notion, although archaic in the author’s view, allows one to answer whether a state would have to be invented if it did not exist, this being a classical question bozick liberal political philosophy.

The chapter is a detailed justification for pursuing the state-of-nature theory. He holds to the premise that one can noizck understand the political realm by explaining it in terms of the nonpolitical.

He thus begins with the Lockean state of nature concept and uses it to build a justification for the state in the rest of the book.

Most of the discussion in part 1 of the book revolves around the “dominant anarquiaa association” in a given aarquia area. The author then builds on this in an attempt to justify from a moral perspective “the minimal state”.

Along the way, one reads about the “ultraminimal state”, which has a monopoly over the use of force except that necessary for immediate self-defense, but will not provide protection to those who do not purchase it.

The author discusses the tension that arises between the ultraminimal state and those who anarqyia not to participate in it. The game-theoretic, optimization-theoretic approach that the author takes, although not advanced and rigorous from a mathematical standpoint, is very straightforward to follow for those not familiar with the more analytical and formal aspects of many modern treatments of political science.


In part 2 the author attempts to deal with alternatives to the minimal state, such as those proposed by the political philosopher John Rawls, and incorporating the doctrine of “distributive justice”. The entitlement-welfare state dialog has not abated in modern political debate, and those who desire an in-depth analysis of these debates will find it in this book.

And again, game-theoretic analysis comes into play, although not yy a rigorous mathematical standpoint. One of the more interesting discussions in this part concerns the right of individuals to leave a state that they find too compulsory.

If a compulsory distribution scheme is the most important, why would a state permit this emigration?

Would such an overidding principle of compulsory distribution also permit forced immigration? These are the kinds of questions that the author addresses in the book, and some are left solely for consideration by the reader. Reader who desire a list of platitudes and endless arguments supporting libertarianism will not find them utopis this book. Readers though who are not concerned with their political and cognitive equilibrium disturbed will enjoy immensely this book. If it can assist in more careful individual consideration of accepted political doctrine and moral cliches, it has done its job This is NOT light reading.

Then again, it’s a philosophy book, and nobody obliged me to read it. I kept reminding myself of this every time I had to re-read a paragraph for the third time before giving up on understanding it. So there you have it, I fully admit that whole sections of this noizck went over my head.

But I’m glad I read it.

And very esatdo this reads like the rantings of a madman. But a fun madman. A humble, honest madman with some amazing moments of clarity. So if you are some type of nozjck who does not like it, you don’t have to join and you and your fellow anarchists obviously can’t expect it to look after you but if you’re just some guy who does not have hangups like that and there’s a choice of protection agencies you will naturally go estaso the one that’s most effective in the area where you live.

So it’s a bit of a natural monopoly locally and it’s not something too distasteful. And it’s a de facto minimal state. So a multitude of such contiguous minimal states can arise without violating anybody’s natural rights. Takes him more than pages to prove the statements I’m repeating potentially mangling here, but that’s the gist of it.

There’s a couple ways to decide if property is justly distributed: Patterned comes in as many flavors as you like. Egalitarian is an example of a pattern. Everybody gets the same. Another famous one that Nozick spends some pages nozjck is “Rawlsian,” namely a distribution that leaves everything alone, except that the guys at the bottom get given a leg up.

Nozick goes to town on this one, attacking the concept of the “veil of ignorance” which allegedly generates the Rawlsian distribution. Under this thought experiment, you don’t know upfront if you’ll be the guy who gets given the good deal or the crappy nozidk, so you take it easy on the guys at the bottom of the distribution. You’ll always look at it from the angle from which you reckon you’ll be placed in.

Deeply philosophical stuff comes in, such as what your allocation really is. Are your brains part of your allocation? If you’re a smart guy how can you think for the stupid guy? That anaruqia of deal. But the best etsado against “patterned” allocations Nozick makes is a lot better than that.