Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” as Want to Read:
Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Enlarge cover
Rate this book
Clear rating
Open Preview

Anarchy, State, and Utopia

3.76  ·  Rating details ·  4,767 ratings  ·  207 reviews
In this brilliant and widely acclaimed book, Robert Nozick challenges the most commonly held political and social positions of our age—liberal, socialist, and conservative.
It won the 1975 U.S. National Book Award in category Philosophy and Religion, has been translated into 11 languages, and was named one of the "100 most influential books since the war" (1945–1995) by the
Paperback, 367 pages
Published 1974 by Basic Books
More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Anarchy, State, and Utopia, please sign up.
Popular Answered Questions

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30
Average rating 3.76  · 
Rating details
 ·  4,767 ratings  ·  207 reviews

More filters
Sort order
Start your review of Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Mar 09, 2019 rated it did not like it
Absolutely atrocious. Logical flaws, conceptual circles, as well as just completely unaware of how ridiculous it sounds. For example, taxation is equal to slavery because you're being forced into something, but being forced to work in a sweatshop or starve is not a violation of freedom, in fact it's voluntary.
Robbie Leslie
Sep 18, 2012 rated it it was amazing
This book had a huge impact on me when I read it at the age of 22 as a post-grad student of political philosophy. It is really only know, at the age of 44, that I realise quite how much Bob Nozick's master-work has shaped my thinking on the state, politics and society over the past 22 years.
I came to the book with preconceptions - Nozick was neo-liberal and Hayekian. I was neither. I was a committed socialist with anarchist leanings (a huge dichotomy there which I didn't see at the time!) and de
Chris Meyers
Jul 29, 2010 rated it it was ok
ASU is a classic work of political philosophy and is widely considered to be the definitive text defending libertarian political theory, which claims that the only justifiable form of political society is one with minimal government and laissez-faire economic system. The proper role of the state is only to protect the basic (negative) rights of life, liberty, and property. Any other goods or services should be provided by private actions (business or donations), and any redistribution of wealth ...more
Lisa (Harmonybites)
Oct 09, 2012 rated it did not like it
Recommends it for: Philosophy Majors with Course Work in Symbolic Logic
This is a work of political philosophy arguing for minimal government, the libertarian counterpart and answer to the liberal John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. This is as far from a popular treatment of the subject (such as say Ayn Rand or the like) as you can get. In other words, yes, this is the work of a professional academic, a Harvard professor of philosophy who wrote the kind of rigorous book used in graduate studies--it even won the National Book Award. It's respectable. But dear God, it ma ...more
Nolan Gray
Oct 18, 2014 rated it it was amazing
Most of the negative reviews of this book boil down to "I don't like his conclusions," which is a sure sign of a mediocre thinker. Even if one doesn't like Nozick's assumptions, his argument is logically rigorous, interesting, and warrants your attention (especially if you've read TOJ.) Further, readers should give section three more love. Most people read the anarchy/state sections and stop, but Nozick's theory of utopia might just be the coolest part of this book.
Peach Pettes
Mar 07, 2018 rated it really liked it
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.
Rui Baptista
Mar 07, 2013 rated it did not like it
Nozick was a philosopher-for-rent. His theories were built on demand to provide justification for an increasingly unequal society where the richest few control all decisions and accumulate more and more wealth, and the poor wither. The reader is expected to believe that this is how it should be.
If Nozick was smart, he was not honest. If he was honest, he certainly was not smart.
Patrick Peterson
The first 40-50 pages were almost unreadable. A few clear statements surrounded by almost impossible to understand or follow statements that just did not seem well connected or to logically prove anything.

I was actually very disappointed, since I had heard so many positive things about the book for over 35 years. I even had some positive memories of when I read some of it about 30 years ago.

Our South Bay Libertarian Book Club discussed the first part last Sunday and almost everyone had similar c
Apr 07, 2008 rated it really liked it
I wish more libertarians would actually read this book and acknowledge that this is not a road map for policy making or even directly transferable to a non-hypothetical world. Nozick makes a powerful case against re-distribution, but even he points out that his theory only works where distribution has not been unjustly accomplished in the first place. I don't fault him for failing to propose a solution to this conundrum, because he doesn't purport to do so and correctly states that it is for eac ...more
Jun 10, 2016 rated it liked it
Anarchy, State, and Utopia is supposed to be the single greatest libertarian treatise yet written. That's how I have seen it advertised several times - funnily, never by libertarians. They were introduced to the movement by Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, or Stefan Molyneux, but none that I talked to was introduced to it by Nozick. His reception in the libertarian movement was at best lukewarm. Nor did he start it. He wasn't active in it for long, he didn't have as big a popular or politica ...more
Manik Sukoco
Jan 01, 2016 rated it really liked it
This book is one of the most unusual in the history of political philosophy, and perhaps one of most brilliant. The author's ideas are thought-provoking and highly original, and he asks the reader to consider arguments, rather than engaging in a "diatribe to convince" (my words here). The author creates a reading atmosphere of intellectual honesty, and this helps to soften the possible uneasiness that some readers might feel in encountering these kinds of arguments for the first time. Some may s ...more
Five stars. Nozick's style is great. He just loves to fool around with various ideas. Most of his conclusions are more like "it seems like logic is suggestive of X" statements. Yet he is also a very formal and dense writer (I don't see these as negatives, especially in this case). He also puts in so many caveats that even his offensive conclusions are not so offensive.
Athan Tolis
Feb 12, 2014 rated it really liked it
Shelves: politics
This is NOT light reading. Then again, it's a philosophy book, and nobody obliged me to read it. I kept reminding myself of this every time I had to re-read a paragraph for the third time before giving up on understanding it.

So there you have it, I fully admit that whole sections of this book went over my head. But I'm glad I read it. Well, I'm not glad I read Chapter 1, which is entitled "Why State-of-Nature Theory?" I would have understood exactly as much of it if it had been written in Sanskr
Nov 20, 2019 rated it liked it
Though Nozick doesn't explicitly draw it out, this book works as a careful but very hidden comparison of the three major ideologies of the 20th century: utopianism (communism), statism (fascism), and anarchy (classical liberalism). The fact that Nozick's main argument seeks to reject anarchy, accept only limited statism, and outline a pathway towards a form of utopianism demonstrates his suppressed left-wing commitments. Others may disagree with this analysis, but we should remember that this bo ...more
Jul 08, 2020 rated it really liked it
Nozick's work is pornography for the critical thinker, a real meaty treat concerning political philosophy. Largely viewed as a response to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice, in fact Nozick responds to or extends any number of theories, though Rawls and his Theory of Justice do form a prominent part. Nozick lays out an argument that a minimal state (more than an ultraminimal state) is both moral and the limit of what could be considered an overarching moral state. That said, he spends part three of ...more
Mar 07, 2010 rated it it was ok
Robert Nozick presents an extreme logical book that is unquestionably the personification of analytical thought. Yet he writes in the preface that he does not necessary believe he is completely correct, he doubts himself. Nozick critiques philosophers like Marx and Foucault who view their work as flawless. This mood makes you want to read his book.
But in the preface he also tells the reader that even though he will base his claims on the viewpoint that all individuals have natural rights, he
Dec 30, 2017 rated it really liked it
Nozick attempts to establish how government and property could be established without violating people’s rights to themselves and to nature, by starting with voluntary protection agencies who find it in their interest to submit to higher arbitration between themselves, members are compensated to not engage in risky behaviors, and services are offered to non-members. Nozick has two important notions for this: 1) side constraints and 2) entitlement theory. Side constraints recognize that ethics is ...more
May 18, 2013 rated it really liked it
This is an extremely heavy piece of libertarian political philosophy. Nozick proves through moral logic (including plenty of propositions and equations) that the minimal libertarian state is the single desirable and natural end-state, that anything beyond that is immoral, and that the only utopian option suitable for diverse mankind, is only possible based on this state. His work includes many of the arguments I've considered over the years (the possibiliy of private owners trapping someone by s ...more
Jul 07, 2014 rated it it was ok
Shelves: philosophy
Nozick's book is more readable than Rawl's A Theory of Justice but it is filled with incredibly bad arguments.

1. Nozick returns to the state of nature and argues that a minimal state is inevitable. After that things get bad.

2. His PA system argument isn't even really an argument. He basically says, "yeah I like the benefits of living in society, but I'm a dick so I don't want to pay for it."

3. The famous "Wilt Chamberlin" argument falls apart once you expand the concept even a little further
Daniel Hageman
Very thought provoking book. While the conclusions are mostly that which I cannot get on board with, as they rely quite heavily on a deontological foundation, many of the points made regarding rights, distributive justice, and the morality of compensation were all quite unique. Granted, I'm not particularly well-versed in these areas of political philosophy. His attempted critiques of utilitarianism didn't go much beyond the classic 'Utility Monster' and 'Experience Machine' thoughts experiments ...more
Laurens van der Tang
Apr 22, 2017 rated it really liked it
If you really think Rawls has said the last word on political philosophy, then it might be time to read this book. Robert Nozick is at his best as a critic, and the best part of this book is the critical part.
In the first of the three parts, Nozick shows that the existence of the (minimal) state can be justified by the principle of compensation, just as well (or better) as by Rawls's principle of (re)distribution. The second part shows that no state more extensive than the minimal state is just
Aug 04, 2018 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
The minimal state treats us as inviolate individuals, who may not be used in certain ways by others as means or tools or instruments or resources; it treats us as persons having individual rights with the dignity this constitutes. Treating us with respect by respecting our rights, it allows us, individually or with whom we choose, to choose our life and to realize our ends and our conception of ourselves, insofar as we can, aided by the voluntary cooperation of other individuals possessing the s ...more
Timothy Olubusoye
Sep 14, 2019 rated it really liked it
Whether you disagree or agree with Nozick's conclusion, there is one thing you certainly can not/should not disagree with––the sheer brilliance of Nozick's derivation of the minimal state. In my opinion, it is analytical political philosophy at its best. Altogether fitted into a solid, holistic alternative conception of the state and society, those unconvinced (at least only at the "head" level, if you take out emotions) after wrestling with Nozick's vision must provide a forceful argument again ...more
Lachie Green
Jun 26, 2020 rated it did not like it
The postive is it's semi-well written. Yet, the ideas that it asserts are so massively incoherent, it's impossible to garner any sort of enjoyment. Nozick writes from a place of unrecognised privilege which, when any form of critical reasoning is applied, is glaring obvious. It's incredible that a person could actually believe what's written in this.
Jan 03, 2020 rated it it was amazing
The greatest book I've ever read in my life. It'd be an utter joke for me to review rather than recapitulate, itself only slightly less of an utter joke given it's been fed through my meat grinder.

1. I don’t want anyone to tell me what to do. Total freedom. Then someone comes and impinges on my freedom
2. Eye for an eye. I am allowed to retaliate. Recover damages, and deter future crime. But this takes time and effort. Also, where does the retaliation stop? Devolves into feuds.
Jan 20, 2019 rated it really liked it
i do't think that nozick's political theory, and more generally his minimal state and entintlment theory of justice is right, but argumentations presented in Anarchy, State and Upotia are so good, clear and well written - it is right conclusions driven by wrong presuppositions.
Jul 16, 2018 rated it liked it
The author carefully proved moral possibility and necessity of the minimal state. Even more rigorous he showed that all other types of government cannot exist without violation of basic rights.
His analysis of redistributive systems is excellent. But there are several problems with this work.
First - mentioned by many critiques - the framework of the minimal state entirely depends on the set of the basic rights. And if we introduce the right for healthcare, even in its most libertarian form the ri
Alex Lee
Jul 18, 2015 rated it it was ok
Shelves: law, 2015, philosophy
Basically Robert Nozick argues for small government because there is no process by which any intervening distribution could be fair.

In fact he may go so far as to be saying that there is no legitimate fairness at all, other than a given impersonal process of arbitration (none of which could ever guarantee fairness).

In essence, he supports small government because there is an absence of genuine legitimacy.

The fact that Nozick supports any given neutral process even given the context of contigency
Reese Faust
Sep 10, 2012 rated it liked it
I first read this subsequently to John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice", which may or may not be a mistake. It may not be a mistake in that it gives a strong counter-argument to Rawls' arguments, and it was, in fact, written in reply to "A Theory of Justice". However, it may have been a mistake, in that Nozick's arguments are very appealing in a society where capitalist ethics have taken strong root; as such, there is a risk that one may allow sentiment (or ego) to subsume a cool understanding of No ...more
Dec 28, 2016 rated it liked it
For the sake of the argument let's take Messi, the football player of our times. Imagine that 1 million people, unconstrained, give him 1 euro just to watch his talent during a season. That means at the end of the season Messi has 1 million euros to feed his children just for being talented. OK. Take a hard-working man that puts all his effort in handling goods in a warehouse and gets 10 thousand euros at the end of the year to feed his children. Where is justice here? Is talent better and more ...more
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 next »
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Readers also enjoyed

  • A Theory of Justice
  • After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory
  • Two Treatises of Government
  • The Road to Serfdom
  • Justice as Fairness: A Restatement
  • On Liberty
  • Reflections on the Revolution in France
  • On Liberty and Other Essays
  • An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
  • Leviathan
  • The Constitution of Liberty
  • Capitalism and Freedom
  • The Ethics of Liberty
  • Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
  • Anatomy of the State
  • An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
  • Utilitarianism
  • Second Treatise of Government
See similar books…
Robert Nozick was an American philosopher and professor at Harvard University. He was educated at Columbia (A.B. 1959, summa cum laude), where he studied with Sidney Morgenbesser, at Princeton (Ph.D. 1963), and Oxford as a Fulbright Scholar. He was a prominent American political philosopher in the 1970s and 1980s. He did additional but less influential work in such subjects as decision theory and ...more

Related Articles

There is nothing like reading a history or biography book and being so completely transported to another time and place that you find...
60 likes · 18 comments
“Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He is often cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.

2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.

3. The master has a group of slave, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.

4. The master allows the slave four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.

5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.

6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what use to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into discussion of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.

8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselve3s to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master may also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)

9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of the slave?”
“There is room for words on subjects other than last words.” 11 likes
More quotes…