Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Is it possible for a book to be TOO logical? Prior to reading this I would have said “no,” but now I’m not so sure. A lot of long boring X = Y + Z sort of statements, mixed in with deep thought about political philosophy and morality.
Nozick makes a strong case for a minimal state being the most justifiable form of human government, and that neither anarchy nor utopia are consistent with human freedom and happiness.
I read this book because I was told that it refuted John Rawl’s “Veil of ignorance” argument for a redistributive state. I think it succeeded, though I couldn’t now tell you how. Pure logic isn’t always enough, we humans are story-understanding-machines.
