Read an article Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Read an article - Essay Example Rothbard presumes that these critiques will be adequate in countering Nozick’s effort to rationalize the state (Rothbard 45). This paper will analyze both Rothbard’s criticisms and Nozick’s ideas against which it is imposed. The evealuation will be based on comparing both Rothbard’s and Nozick’s arguments. Rothbard asserts that Nozick is attempting to conceal his views by not providing evidence of a state that was established or advanced using Nozick views. Rothbard argues that Nozick has not provided any evidence regarding the history of definite States. In contrast, the historical proof points to different arguments. In all the States with adequate facts, they developed by a course of exploitation, violence, and conquest. In arguing that States could have been formed without violating the rights of people, Nozick ignores the probability of exploitation, violence, and conquest, as argued by Rothbard. Therefore, there can be no justification for Noz ick’s existing States because they are presumed to arise from flawless origins and there is none which is in existence. This means that Rothbard is correct in asserting that States develop through a course of exploitation, violence, and conquest and not flawless, as asserted by Nozick’s views (Rothbard 45). ... This may be perceived to be wrong because all individuals have a sense of self-ownership and, therefore, cannot give up their rights so as to be involved in a compulsory agreement. If all people are naturally independent, free, and hold intrinsic rights, they cannot enter into a contract with the State for the sole purpose of developing the State (Rothbard 46). Rothbard goes on to assess the Nozickian stages, specifically the supposed obligation and the morality of the manners in which the different stages progress from the initial ones. Nozick starts by presuming that every anarchist protective organization functions in a moral and non-aggressive way. In Rothbard views, Nozick presumes that all protective organizations would necessitate that all of its customers relinquish the right of reprisal against aggression, by declining to safeguard them against counter-reprisal. In arguing in this manner, Nozick is incorrect because he assumes the responsibilities of different protection org anizations, participating in the market, and is undoubtedly not obvious (Rothbard 46). He neglects the probability of the protective agencies being out-done by different organizations that do not constrain their clients in a similar manner. In addition, Nozick talks about disagreements among customers of dissimilar protection agencies. He provides three situations of how they might advance. Nonetheless, two of these situations entail physical encounters among the agencies. Rothbard claims that these conditions oppose Nozick’s personal presumptions of nonaggressive behavior and good faith by his organizations. Nonetheless, Rothbard’s claim that it would be illogical to suppose the protective agencies would tackle each other in a physical way