Natural Rights Libertarian

   January 23rd marks the tenth anniversary of Robert Nozick’s tragically premature death of stomach cancer at the age of 63. Few, if any, 20th century academic philosophers have had as consequential an impact on the world beyond the ivory tower.  It is worth, I believe, reflecting  for a moment or two regarding this remarkable life of ideas. Continue Reading »

In previous posts I have challenged the idea that there are doctrinaire libertarian positions favoring an isolationist foreign policy and disfavoring the recognition of intellectual property rights. I am now going to engage in a comparable exercise with respect to immigration, critiquing the notion that an “open borders” immigration policy is implied by basic libertarian principles governing property rights. I will use as my jumping off point Michael Huemer’s excellent recent essay on this subject, “Is There a Right to Immigrate?” Continue Reading »

My book, Nozick’s Libertarian Project: An Elaboration and Defense (“NLP”), was just reviewed by Professor Matt Matravers for Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/27410-nozick-s-libertarian-project-an-elaboration-and-defense/. Set forth below is my analysis of his comments. To cut to the chase, while Matravers generally does a good job of describing my objectives and the thrust of my arguments in NLP, I have serious issues with a number of his substantive conclusions. Unless otherwise indicated, parenthetical references below are to my book. Continue Reading »

I am confident that my readers need no introduction to Ayn Rand. Although she abjured the label, she is clearly one of the leading figures in the history of the libertarian movement. She is famous for her Objectivist philosophy, outlined in such essays as “The Virtue of Selfishness” and, of course, in her novels. Her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, was a huge best seller during her lifetime and, remarkably, its popularity continues today, 54 years after its publication.

This brief essay will offer an appreciation of Rand’s contribution to our politics that differs from the usual accolades one hears from her devotees. Before going further, I should say that although I admire Rand, I am not a Randian. For the reasons outlined in my book, I do not find her Objectivist ethics–the foundation of her political philosophy–convincing. Continue Reading »

One of the hottest topics in contemporary rights-based libertarian theory is the question of whether intellectual property is justified from the moral perspective. While many important historical libertarian figures (e.g. Lysander Spooner) and modern ones (Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick) have defended the ethical foundation of this form of property, I think it is fair to say that the current tide of opinion is flowing in the opposite direction. One reason for this is the influential 1990 essay by Tom G. Palmer, “Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects” (in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 13/3), which is available here, http://tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/palmer-morallyjustified-harvard-v13n3.pdf. Continue Reading »

About two months ago I was interviewed by Kosmos Online about my book. This interview is now available here, http://www.kosmosonline.org/group-post/podcast-mark-friedman-nozicks-libertarian-project, both as an audio file and as a transcript. Unfortunately, due to a technical problem the answer to one of the four questions was inaudible and thus not included as part of the Kosmos podcast. However, I have included the fouth question below, together with my (reconstructed) answer. Kosmos, a project of the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, describes itself as an online community “that provides career advice and intellectual content for liberty loving academics.” Of course, all comments and questions regarding my interview are welcome. Continue Reading »

Libertarianism is generally associated with what is traditionally called an “isolationist” stance in matters of international relations. At the extreme edge, the anarcho-capitalists regard all states, of whatever form and function, as intrinsically evil. Therefore, they (following Rothbard) tend to see little distinction between the desirability of living under the authority of one state relative to others, and their foreign policy prescription will be to simply to devolve all states, while urging what is virtually a pacifist foreign policy. Continue Reading »

The question of whether external resources, including land, can be justly acquired in the first instance remains a highly controversial subject in political philosophy. The reason for this is that the possibility of appropriating natural assets in a morally unobjectionable fashion is an essential part of the larger narrative that justifies the institution of private property for those who follow in the tradition of Locke, including most particularly Robert Nozick. On this account, a just claim to natural resources is established when an individual invests his/her time and labor improving the asset in some substantial way, and other persons are not disadvantaged in the process, either because there remain other equally good resources available for appropriation or because of the general benefits gained from the institution of private property. Continue Reading »

For those of my readers not already familiar with the Institute for Humane Studies (“IHS”), I would like to provide here a brief introduction. Founded in 1961 by F.A. (“Baldy”) Harper, a Cornell University economist, IHS has for the last 50 years been one of the leading institutions promoting the virtues of classical liberalism/libertarianism. It does so through educational outreach, providing opportunities for faculty members to interact with peers, and through scholarships, seminars and conferences for graduate and undergraduate students on its campus at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, and at other academic institutions around the nation. Its alumni are well represented in the economics, political science, philosophy and history departments of our leading colleges and universities.

Online learning has long been a part of the IHS mission, and it is now in the midst of a major initiative to bring cutting edge scholarship to a wider audience. It has recently launched Liberty Academy, a free, self-paced online education resource featuring leading scholars within the classical liberal tradition. Its first two online courses, The Economic Way of Thinking and Political Philosophy: Liberty and Rights, consist of a series of original 2-5 minute videos, which in their totality provide an excellent introduction to each topic. After each video, students are referred to additional resources where they can delve deeper, discuss the ideas with others, and take a self-assessment to test their understanding.

I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity, and to share it with your friends. There is a link (“Learning Liberty”) to Liberty Academy on the right margin of this page.

In my last post, “Style and Substance in ASU,” I critiqued Barbara Fried’s 2005 essay “Begging the Question With Style: Anarchy, State and Utopia at Thirty Years.” An electronic version of Fried’s piece is available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=523743. My post showed that Fried was deeply misinformed about or deliberately ignored what Nozick claimed for ASU and the substance of much of his argumentation. Moreover, her partisan attack on Nozick was rife with intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. Apart from these quibbles, it was a noble effort.

With the one exception described below, Fried’s essay was not a frontal attack on the principles Nozick articulated and defended in ASU. Rather, she sought to undermine them through the rather strange method of attacking his style, and specifically by identifying and describing the alleged rhetorical trickery that enables him to cleverly disguise the underlying weakness of his arguments. She thus sought to discredit his entire enterprise “on the cheap,” i.e. without offering any new or interesting reasons to reject any of his central principles.

As just mentioned, Fried departed from her analysis of Nozick’s “devious” style just long enough to offer her readers a single substantive objection to his reasoning. She claims to have noticed a startling inconsistency between Nozick’s insistence on a near-absolute prohibition on the coercion of competent adults in Parts I and II of ASU, and the discussion in Part III of his own conception of what would constitute a “framework for utopias” under libertarian principles. According to Nozick, “Utopia is a framework for utopias, a place where people are at liberty to join together voluntarily to pursue and attempt to realize their own vision of the good life in the ideal community but where no one can impose his own utopian vision upon others” (ASU, 312). Continue Reading »