Nozick: The Remix

While reading Capitalism and Freedom, I was reminded of reading in the Philosophy section of PPE. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick categorizes theories of justice as either end-result principles or historical principles. Perhaps less-clearly, Friedman espouses his own version of the same argument: “To deny that the end justifies the means is indirectly to assert that the end in question is not the ultimate end, that the ultimate end is itself the use of the proper means.” (20) Nozick claims that a correct account of distributive justice does not require a particular distribution and cannot be of the end-result variety. Through the Wilt Chamberlain example Nozick posits that a transfer is just if it is voluntary. The Milton Friedman example: “The possibility of co-ordination through voluntary co-operation rests on the elementary-yet-frequently denied-proposition that both parties benefit from it, provided the transaction is bi-laterally voluntary and informed.” (13, emphasis in the original)

Friedman’s analysis falls on a hard liberal line. He goes beyond the claim that the government is not good and extends the argument to include the negative impact of the government on man’s freedom. How many times does he mention that the government’s power must be dispersed, that the scope of government must be limited? E would be so proud. And his argument is pretty clear, and hard to argue with (am I really saying that?). In the discussion of the education system, however, it is not quite clear to me how his system would remove the advantage of the rich in providing their children with better education. Sure there would be competition among schools to provide quality education at decent prices but something tells me that the student population at Exeter and Andover (and even La Jolla Country Day for that matter) will still be pretty homogeneous when it comes to socioeconomic diversity.

Friedman is convincing but at some point the “liberal” in me starts wincing. The fact that he grounds his arguments in policy prescriptions that are tangible (albeit slightly infeasible) strengthens his position. Again WE would be proud of Friedman’s take on population control. He explains: “imposing the costs [of education] would tend to equalize the social and private costs of having children and so promote a better distribution of families by size.” (87)