![]() The paper concludes that in a state of nature as an advanced civilization protection and conflict resolution are not integrated in the same firm. The paper approaches critically Nozick's argument and the main claims are: a) for the first moment, the specification of the conditions of the state of nature must take into account a contrast between the state of nature as a primitive civilization versus an advanced civilization view of it b) for the second moment, the critical approach emphasizes the contrast between the extensional identification versus the separation of protections and the resolution of disputes in private courts c) for the third moment, the significance of territory versus the irrelevance of territory in the resolution of conflicts between agencies. ![]() Each of the three sections of the paper discusses one of these moments and identifies a potentially weak point in Nozick's argument. It distinguishes three moments: a) the specification of the initial conditions of the state of nature b) the building-up of protection agencies c) the building-up of dominant protection agencies. The paper reconstructs the first stage analyzed by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |