« Reading through the State of the Union Speech | Main | No, No, NO! »

For God's Sake, Someone Shut Up Robert Nozick!

From today's Reg. State reading, Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick:

In a free society, diverse persons control different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and actions of persons. There is no more a distributing or distribution of shares [of resources] than there is a distributing of mates in a society in which persons choose whom they shall marry.

Strike this man off our curriculum immediately, before he gives the next generation ideas. His argument obviously cuts both ways, and let's face it, ugly people are discriminated against heavily in the selection of mates. [1] Good looks are, arguably, inherited from your parents as much as wealth, and certainly something which isn't related to the merit of the individual. So how long will it be before someone decides to start requiring dates with ugly people?

(Of course, fellow students might point out that I'd be a strong net beneficiary of this system, but I'm still wary in principle...)

[1] Perhaps not in the selection of marriage-partners, but that's another question.

Update: Wow, I didn't know Nozick had such fans, and that my sense of humor was so bad. To make it explicit, I know what Nozick is saying, and mostly agree with him. The post is a joke: I found it funny that while he's making an 'X is ridiculous, thus Y is ridiculous' argument, the flip side of that is that if you find Y is not ludicrous, you might re-evaluate your opinion of X.


TrackBack URL for this entry:


Just further proof that Reg State isn't the most important class at CLS. And understatement isn't my primary means of speaking.
I haven't read any Nozick, but the passage you quote doesn't strike me as any kind of argument for wealth "distribution" reform, or the like. Looks like Nozick (unless I'm missing unquoted context here) is just dragging terms like "distribution" out into the sun, and deconstructing them.
There is one thing I like about that quote... It's well known that "All's fair in love and war". So by implication the same is now true of politics, economics and the like. (Well, OK, it always was - but now someone famous has set so it's surely even more true !) Maybe the next US president will rise to power on the strength of the voting power of ugly voters ?
Dont let Paul convince you that everyone hates Reg State. I thought it was the most entertaining class in my first year. The best part is watching liberals try to justify rent control.
Elizabeth Anderson talks about the distribution of attractive partners in Value in Ethics and Economics; I think Walzer's concept of spheres rebutts that effectively.
Sadly, except for Joel (hi there, Yoelie!), everyone -does- hate Reg State. Unless they get Sage. Um, on Nozick: It's a subtle point, but you definitely missed it. Nozick's point is the content of your paragraph: No one at all thinks that distribution of dates would be appropriate, so why is it we think that distribution of resources should be any better? (Caveat: That's only one way to understand it, as the normative point that we _shouldn't_ be in the redistribution business. Probably more faithful to Nozick's meaning is the theoretical point: That there _is_ no distribution of resources, properly speaking, no agent divvying up the things we do things with. Societal choices are made at a different level---are people going to be free, or unfree?---but what people have is just a consequence of what people do.)
Oh dear, this doesn't speak well for my sense of humor, since too many people have taken that edit seriously...
Oh. No, uh... we all got it. 's funny. Good one.
I'm totally confused... do you understand Nozick's argument at all? Tony the Pony made a good point up there... and although I'd couch his argument in terms of the invisible hand, to give it more of a crazy-libertarian feel, it's spot on. My confusion stems from your post's incomprehensible prose. I'm not trying to be rude, but I can't make heads or tails of what you said. And a final note: Nozick passed away last year, so no one needs to "shut him up" now.
Oh dear. I suppose as a joke this one didn't go over very well. Nozick's point is, within his framework, well made, but when he says:
There is no more a distributing or distribution of shares [of resources] than there is a distributing of mates in a society in which persons choose whom they shall marry
he makes a comparative statement, not an absolute one. Now in our society, we generally consider ourselves 'free', and yet we do have a distribution of shares of resources, at least to a certain degree. (For instance, we have progressive income tax rates.) Someone who didn't get Nozick's point might then conclude "Oh, wow--maybe we should distribute mates, too..." Or to put it another way, he tries to make his point by saying that if one thing (distributed marriage) is absurd, then another (distributed income) is also absurd. The joke lies in pointing out the danger that if someone finds the latter thing not to be absurd, they might include the same of the former. In general, I find myself sympathetic to Nozick's point, but I've never liked the method of argument he uses. I understand that Nozick is saying exactly what Tony the Pony summarized: "No one at all thinks that distribution of dates would be appropriate, so why is it we think that distribution of resources should be any better?" But the flip side of that assumption is that if one does think distribution of resources is appropriate, maybe one should re-check one's assumptions on the distribution of dates. Ah well. You can't win them all, I suppose.
Life is like this, where there is good there is also bad, You cannot have God without the Devil, the thing is the Bible speaks quite clearly that during the end times the Beast will run the earth.Only for seven years...Now we all know that we live in a Devil run society today, the thing is at some point soon the Beast will appear physically and run the Earth, in a way no one has seen or heard...I would also like to make this point, the Bible also speaks of the antichrist, but it does not say where the antichrist comes from......... Looks like we are all in big trouble if some madman spends three days in the center of the earth...... Now you might think that God and the Devil do not exist....This is a fair comment, The trouble with thinking that God and the Devil don't exist on leaves your soul open for eternal torture, because if you don't beleive that God exists you won't goto Heaven, and if you don't beleive that the Devil exists, do you really think he is going to go easy on you when you find yourself in HELL...........

Post a comment

NOTICE TO SPAMMERS, COMMENT ROBOTS, TRACKBACK SPAMMERS AND OTHER NON-HUMAN VISITORS: No comment or trackback left via a robot is ever welcome at Three Years of Hell. Your interference imposes significant costs upon me and my legitimate users. The owner, user or affiliate who advertises using non-human visitors and leaves a comment or trackback on this site therefore agrees to the following: (a) they will pay fifty cents (US$0.50) to Anthony Rickey (hereinafter, the "Host") for every spam trackback or comment processed through any blogs hosted on threeyearsofhell.com, morgrave.com or housevirgo.com, irrespective of whether that comment or trackback is actually posted on the publicly-accessible site, such fees to cover Host's costs of hosting and bandwidth, time in tending to your comment or trackback and costs of enforcement; (b) if such comment or trackback is published on the publicly-accessible site, an additional fee of one dollar (US$1.00) per day per URL included in the comment or trackback for every day the comment or trackback remains publicly available, such fee to represent the value of publicity and search-engine placement advantages.

Giving The Devil His Due

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students

De Novo
Theory and Practice
Liberal Federalism?
Good News, No Foolin'

Nancy Pelosi covers her head and visits the head of John the Baptist.
Vlogging in from Austin.
Omikase/"American Idol"

Jeremy Blachman's Weblog: 2007
Happy Passover
Looking for Advice re: LA
Google Books

Stay of Execution
What I've Learned From This Blog, or My Yellow Underpants
The End
Mid Thirties

Legal Theory Blog
Program Announcement: Summer Programs on the Constitution at George Washington
Book Announement: Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy by Whittington
Entry Level Hiring Report

The Volokh Conspiracy
Making the Daily Show:
Civil unions pass New Hampshire House:
Profile of Yale Law Dean Harold Koh:

Crescat Sententia
Hillary II
Politics and Principal/Agents

Law Dork
Election Approaches
Following Lewis
New Jersey High Court: 'Same Rights and Benefits'

Surveying the revival
Birds of paradise

Half the Sins of Mankind
Cheney Has Spoken Religious conservatives who may ...
Does Ahmadinejad Know Christianity Better Than MSN...
Borders as Genocide In discussions of climate chan...

For lovers of garden gnomes...and any China-freaks out there
We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming

Does SOX explain the flight from NY?
More Litvak on SOX effect on cross-listed firms
What did the market learn from internal controls reporting?

The Yin Blog
Iowa City = Riyadh
Jeffrey Rosen's "The Supreme Court"
Geek alert -- who would win between Battlestar Galactica and the U.S.S. Enterprise?

Letters of Marque
And there we are

Signing Off

Dark Bilious Vapors
Jim (The Waco Kid): Where you headed, cowboy?
Bart: Nowhere special.
Jim: Nowhere special. I always wanted to go there.
Bart: Come on.
--"Blazing Saddles"

Technical Difficulties... please stand by....
The Onion should have gotten a patent first....

Legal Ethics Forum
Interesting new Expert DQ case
Decency, Due Care, and The Yoo-Delahunty Memorandum
Thinking About the Fired U.S. Attorneys

Ex Post
Student Symposium- Chicago!
More Hmong - Now at Law School
Good Samaritan Laws: Good For America?

Appellate Law & Practice
Those turned over documents
CA1: courts can’t help people acquitted of crimes purge the taint of acquitted conduct
CA1: restrictions on chain liquor stores in Rhode Island are STILL okay

the imbroglio
High schoolers turn in plagiarism screeners for copyright infringement
Paris to offer 20,600 bikes at 1,450 stations to rent by the end of the year

The Republic of T.
The Secret of the Snack Attack
links for 2007-04-04
Where You Link is What You Get

Distractions for stressed law students

The Other Side: Twisted AnimationsSomething Positive, a truly good webcomic

Syndicate This Site



Stop Spam Harvesters, Join Project Honey Pot