Re: Nozick's Minimalism

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:13:33 -0500

Dan Fabulich 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 the 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 right-to-carry 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 a PPF situation.

Mike Lorrey