Learn the story of how a Harvard-educated socialist tried to debunk libertarianism and became one of its strongest defenders.
Most people think freedom needs to be justified.
Robert Nozick has turned the tables: power must be justified!
In the 1960s, Nozick was everything the academic world admired:
- Columbia graduate
- Harvard professor
- A staunch socialist
He believed in redistribution, social justice, and the state.
Until a question stuck in his mind:
What if libertarians weren't just selfish, but right?
He didn't grow up libertarian.
He didn't read Rand. He didn't read Mises.
But unlike many of his peers, Nozick didn't want to win arguments with slogans.
He wanted to understand his opponents and defeat them.
So he began reading libertarian thinkers.
And his reading wasn't what he expected.
In 1974, Nozick published Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
This shook political philosophy.
John Rawls had just published "A Theory of Justice," arguing for distributive equality.
Nozick responded:
You don't need to justify liberty. You need to justify coercion.
Nozick's central idea was simple:
"Individuals have rights, and there are things that no person or group can do to them without violating those rights."
Rights are not granted by governments.
They are not up for a vote.
They exist before politics.
What kind of state survives this test?
Perhaps a small, very small one.
Nozick envisioned competing private protection agencies.
Eventually, one might dominate... not by force, but by service.
That could be a state.
But only if it didn't violate anyone's rights.
In Nozick's view, the state is a service provider, not a ruler.
It can't force you in. It can't prevent you from leaving.
And it has no special moral status.
It exists to protect you. And only with your consent.
Why did he oppose redistribution?
Because it uses people.
If you can't force your neighbor to clean their house "for the greater good,"
Why can the state force them to give up their work or income?
Nozick's answer: It can't. Not morally.
In the 1980s, Nozick began writing about other topics: ethics, metaphysics, and knowledge.
Critics claimed he had "outgrown" libertarianism.
But in his final interview, Nozick refuted this myth.
He reaffirmed his core view: Only minimal obligations justify coercion.
And freedom best defines these limits.
You don't have to agree with everything Nozick wrote.
But if you believe in power, now you have to answer his question:
What gives you the right to use another person without their consent?
Most political theories don't even try.