Libertarians and Property Rights: My Brief Response to Nozick
By: Kevin Meyers
Tags: Libertarianism, Philosophy, Robert Nozick, Values

Robert Nozick: Harvard Professor, philosopher, and perhaps the most influential libertarian thinker of the 20th Century

In 1974, an American philosopher named Robert Nozick published his famous work, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a defense of libertarian values. Writing in response to the egalitarian philosopher John Rawls, Nozick outlined a series of arguments in favor of extremely limited government, based on a notion of justice that focuses on principles of non-aggression, non-interference, and the enhancement of individual liberty. When considering my views on libertarianism and self-ownership, I could not but help think about the assumptions that undergo any philosophical self-reflection. If I am honest with myself, I would have to say I do not think I fully believe in the self-ownership principle, outlined by libertarians like Robert Nozick, which claims that respect for an individual’s inherent ownership of themselves should be the primary concern of how governments and societies are organized and structured.

However, I believe that human beings are not totally free: they are bound by laws of morality that compel action. For instance, I believe it is immoral not to, by some mechanism, aid the poor. This could include giving up time and effort to aid those in poverty. This could include giving up resources, either through charity or through consenting to give money to the government to fund a welfare state (taxation). To me, the moral doctrine of self-ownership fails to consider moral duties that we have to one another. This includes, in my opinion, an obligation to desire for and participate in some sort of communal system in which everyone’s basic needs are met- health care, food, etc. The government, in my view, should actively take measures to supply these goods, either through direct action (that is, government means) or a legal framework that assures private actors (like charities) provide these services, in the name of the greater good.

Nozick, and other libertarians of his stripe, claims that government action in the name of some greater good is unjust if it relies on coerced action. He believes that taxation would disrupt the natural free flow of money between consenting adults, and believes this to be an unjust action, in violation of the rights on individuals. Underlying this assumption, however, is the notion of property rights, which require a state to maintain. Property is, in my opinion, a legal or social concept, for all intents and purposes. A person cannot claim to own something fully, in my view, without some social understanding with other parties that they own it. If a person lives alone on a desert island and collects a large number of coconuts, they are not his. One may argue that he worked to collect them, and thus he is entitled to own them. I would counter that a car thief also labors to steal a car, and yet that does not mean the car thief owns the car then. I am not saying that taking coconuts or something similar from nature is morally wrong, but I do believe it is wrong to claim property rights without an understanding from at least one other person that one’s possessions belong to them.

This attitude I have about property rights explains my fundamental disagreement with Nozick and libertarianism. Does this mean I am against the ideals of freedom and individual liberty? No- in fact, I am very sympathetic to Nozick and libertarians, given their clear recognition of individuals as separate, sentient beings with their own thoughts, desires, and feelings of self-worth. It comes down, ultimately, to a disagreement over certain values. I value individualism, but not individualism in a vacuum. Property rights, in my opinion, are a social phenomenon. One does not “own” property as a fundamental right, in the same way one own’s their own life or their own speech. Property rights exist, but they exist because society finds it beneficial for people to be able to own possessions. Property is a means to a greater good, not an end unto itself.