 |
| Replies |
 John (main path) |
 Fred |
John |
 Ann |
| Moral Rights |
| Ann
Speaking
|
 I
agree with Thomson. I think Nozick's property rights are way too
strong. But I think it is also important to realize that it isn't
clear what his property rights would imply for our situation in the
United States today.Nozick himself pointed out, after presenting his theory, that we cannot apply it directly to any specific case such as the United States. A theory of rights must include principles and rules telling us what to do if rights have been violated in the past. Nozick is very clear on this. He calls it "rectification" but says very little about it. These issues are very complex and are best left to a full treatment of the principle of rectification. In the absence of such a treatment applied to a particular society, one cannot use the analysis and theory presented here to condemn any particular scheme of transfer payments, unless it is clear that no considerations of rectification of injustice could apply to justify it. Although to introduce socialism as the punishment for our sins would go to go too far, past injustices might be so great as to make necessary in the short run a more extensive state in order to rectify them. [Anarchy, State, and Utopia p. 231]
In my view, a study of our history would lead to the following
conclusions even if we began with libertarian premises:
(a) Massive reparations would be required to make up for the theft, fraud, violence, and threats that have occurred over the centuries. |
| Ariadne's Home | Contact Ariadne at: | Justice Home |
| Justice Bibliography |  |
Justice Contents |
|
||