The underexamined role of money and how it undermines Nozick’s case for right libertarianism

Q4 Arts and Humanities Ruch Filozoficzny Pub Date : 2023-02-17 DOI:10.12775/rf.2022.033
Helen Grela
{"title":"The underexamined role of money and how it undermines Nozick’s case for right libertarianism","authors":"Helen Grela","doi":"10.12775/rf.2022.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick presented his doctrine of right libertarianism, largely a contemporary restatement of Locke’s moral imperative that an individual’s rights to his life, liberty, and property are absolute and place limits on state action. Parallelly, Nozick espoused the free-market system as a framework that not only respects individual rights but ensures material benefits. While the free market results in radical inequalities in holdings and widespread dispossession, Nozick treats the process as morally just and any state redistribution through taxation as wrong. However, neither Nozick nor his many critics fully considered the role of money in capitalist free markets, an omission I begin to address. \n  \nNozick asserts that money emerges pre-politically through the uncoerced actions of individuals, and that it derives its value from the commodity that underpins it. This conception of money underpins Nozick’s claims that a minimal state can be just and that the free-market system is a moral, efficient, and neutral allocator of resources. However, Nozick’s approach omits addressing how money’s general acceptability and stability are achieved. Answers can be found in heterodox economic paradigms, which put the state at the center of money creation, rendering money (and the state) incompatible with natural rights. Furthermore, by insisting on money’s commodity nature, Nozick ignores the seventeenth century revolution in money, necessitated by the emergence of free-market capitalism and commodity money’s inability to underpin it. In other words, it is not commodity money but credit money that should be the proper object of Nozick’s analysis. I go on to analyze what credit money is, how it arose, and why some form of it is necessary in a free-market context. Ultimately, I argue that it is not compatible with natural rights and is itself redistributive. \nKey words: money, distributive justice, Nozick, Locke, free market capitalism, natural rights","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ruch Filozoficzny","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2022.033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick presented his doctrine of right libertarianism, largely a contemporary restatement of Locke’s moral imperative that an individual’s rights to his life, liberty, and property are absolute and place limits on state action. Parallelly, Nozick espoused the free-market system as a framework that not only respects individual rights but ensures material benefits. While the free market results in radical inequalities in holdings and widespread dispossession, Nozick treats the process as morally just and any state redistribution through taxation as wrong. However, neither Nozick nor his many critics fully considered the role of money in capitalist free markets, an omission I begin to address.   Nozick asserts that money emerges pre-politically through the uncoerced actions of individuals, and that it derives its value from the commodity that underpins it. This conception of money underpins Nozick’s claims that a minimal state can be just and that the free-market system is a moral, efficient, and neutral allocator of resources. However, Nozick’s approach omits addressing how money’s general acceptability and stability are achieved. Answers can be found in heterodox economic paradigms, which put the state at the center of money creation, rendering money (and the state) incompatible with natural rights. Furthermore, by insisting on money’s commodity nature, Nozick ignores the seventeenth century revolution in money, necessitated by the emergence of free-market capitalism and commodity money’s inability to underpin it. In other words, it is not commodity money but credit money that should be the proper object of Nozick’s analysis. I go on to analyze what credit money is, how it arose, and why some form of it is necessary in a free-market context. Ultimately, I argue that it is not compatible with natural rights and is itself redistributive. Key words: money, distributive justice, Nozick, Locke, free market capitalism, natural rights
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
金钱未被充分审视的角色,以及它如何削弱诺齐克的右翼自由主义
在《无政府状态、国家和乌托邦》一书中,诺齐克提出了他的权利自由主义学说,这在很大程度上是对洛克的道德要求的当代重申,即个人对自己的生命、自由和财产的权利是绝对的,并对国家的行为加以限制。与此同时,诺齐克支持自由市场体系,认为它不仅尊重个人权利,而且确保物质利益。虽然自由市场导致了财产的极端不平等和广泛的剥夺,但诺齐克认为这一过程在道德上是公正的,任何通过税收进行的国家再分配都是错误的。然而,诺齐克和他的许多批评者都没有充分考虑到货币在资本主义自由市场中的作用,这是我开始解决的一个遗漏。诺齐克断言,在政治出现之前,货币是通过个人的非强制性行为出现的,它的价值来自支撑它的商品。这种货币概念支撑了诺齐克的主张,即最小的国家可以是公正的,自由市场体系是一个道德的、有效的、中立的资源分配机制。然而,诺齐克的方法忽略了如何实现货币的普遍可接受性和稳定性。答案可以在非正统的经济范式中找到,这些范式将国家置于货币创造的中心,使货币(和国家)与自然权利不相容。此外,通过坚持货币的商品性质,诺齐克忽略了17世纪的货币革命,这是自由市场资本主义的出现和商品货币无力支撑它所必需的。换句话说,诺齐克分析的对象应该是信用货币而不是商品货币。接下来我将分析什么是信用货币,它是如何产生的,以及为什么某种形式的信用货币在自由市场环境下是必要的。最后,我认为它与自然权利是不相容的,它本身就是再分配。关键词:货币,分配正义,诺齐克,洛克,自由市场资本主义,自然权利
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ruch Filozoficzny
Ruch Filozoficzny Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cień na oświeceniowym rozumie, czyli Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant i Hugo Kołłątaj o kobietach, ich roli społecznej i edukacji Sprawiedliwość i równość w interpretacji liderów polskiej myśli oświeceniowej Zetetyczny rejs Kwestia wolności w ujęciu Spinozy i Leibniza a perspektywa kompatybilistyczna Anthony Collins i jego pierwsza rozprawa (An Essay Concerning the Use of Reason in Propositions, The Evidence whereof depends upon Human Testimony)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1