Re: Nozick's Minimalism

Dan Fabulich (
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 19:32:46 -0500

Michael Lorrey wrote:
>> This approach is innovative, and one for which I don't have an effective
>> response. My first thought would be that, by this definition, all of the
>> nations of the world that aren't currently at war are operating under a
>> PPF... I'm not sure what consequences this might have on the argument.
>> Additionally, what if my right to protect myself is worth more to me than
>> the protection a PPF can provide? Presumably, then, the PPF would have to
>> pay me to leave. If so, how could a market mechanism be developed by which
>> a fair price could be determined?
>Not necessarily. It can pay those who wish to be able to defend themselves
>right to do so provided they also act as undercover deputized security
>personnel, responsible to defend others in a criminal or other security
>situation. This is essentially what is happening in states with
>concealed weapons laws, as private citizens carrying concealed weapons act
as an
>implied and unknown threat against potential criminals, thus acting to deter
>crime against all, and benefitting the PPF. Under the US Constitution, all
>individuals between the ages of 18 and 40 are members of the militia who
can be
>drawn on by local law enforcement personnel as deputies to form posse's
for the
>purpose of fighting local crime. These are two examples of self defense in

This seems like a fine idea, (presuming I didn't mind, in this example,) but doesn't the concept of a PPF sort of undermine the whole point of anarcho-capitalism? I mean, this is my real problem/question. If there's only one PPF making the laws, how can we expect the laws to be formed fairly under legal market principles? Isn't the PPF a government at this point? (This was Nozick's argument.)