it is based, where Nozick’s argument is deficient, and the second concerns the epistemological and conceptual nature of those rights. In the first instance, Nozick’s ideal state would seem to require a quite different state in order to begin. It is not at all clear how any definition of “free” is to be applied to the current state of affairs for the purpose of free contracts. Thus, all suspicions of corruption, nepotism, privilege and heredity will have to be eradicated, not to mention historical geographical disparities, before an equitable position will exist between all the members of Nozick’s hypothetical universal state 144 . Similarly, it is not at all clear what provision will be necessary to enable those who simply cannot participate equitably with their peers due to impairment to at least participate to the satisfaction of their basic needs. If the answer is private charity, then the historic best case has been inefficiency, stigma and subsistence, and the worst case has been extreme human misery, and would open Nozick to accusations of racist, ablist and ageist eugenicism. It may turn out that there is such a thing as “social justice” after all, even within the terms of utopian, anarchist rational self-interest 145 . In the second, two difficulties persist. The first is that, despite the efforts of Locke, Hegel, Kant, Paine, Gewirth, Lafayette, Jefferson or the Parliamentarians and jurists behind the Bill of Rights, ECHR, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is not clear what rights are in the context of their violation, what criteria exist for determining them that also http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/government.pdf, Sec. 87, and Mill, J. S., On Liberty at http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html, para. 12, all retrieved 19/04/2016 at 13:23 p.m. 144 Nozick, R., Anarchy, State and Utopia , at https://joseywales1965.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/0001_anarchy_state_an d_utopia.pdf, p. 150, retrieved 19/04/2016 at 14:01 p.m. 145 Ibid., p. 66, and Sen, A., “Liberty and Social Choice”, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 80, No. 1, Jan. 1983, pp. 5-28, p. 15
57
Made with FlippingBook HTML5