(Click here to continue on the main path)

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]

• Massive reparations would be required to make up for the theft, fraud, violence, and threats that have occurred over the centuries.


• Full rectification may be impossible, but partial rectification is feasible.


• The present distribution of wealth and income would not be justified. Major changes would be required.
  

I would like to make one more point about Nozick's view. He believes that a readjustment based on past injustice should be a one-time readjustment. But I think that is politically impossible. If so, the question becomes this: What is the second best solution to the problem of past injustice from  libertarian point of view? I would like to suggest that it would be something far less than a large-scale, one-time readjustment -- perhaps a small ongoing adjustment in wealth and income. At least that is politically feasible. But it also sounds similar to the operation of the welfare state that we already have. In other words, a libertarian who wants to rectify past injustices may end up supporting some basic welfare state programs. Dee and I might end up with a curious convergence despite our different premises!!