Trade in Yours
For a £9.98 Gift Card
Trade in
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Sorry, this item is not available in
Image not available for
Image not available

Tell the Publisher!
I’d like to read this book on Kindle

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

Anarchy, State and Utopia [Hardcover]

Robert Nozick
3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (18 customer reviews)

Available from these sellers.


Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover --  
Paperback £21.59  
Trade In this Item for up to £9.98
Trade in Anarchy, State and Utopia for an Amazon Gift Card of up to £9.98, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Learn more

Book Description

13 Jan 1975 0631156801 978-0631156802 1st Edition
Winner of the 1975 National Book Award, this brilliant and widely acclaimed book is a powerful philosophical challenge to the most widely held political and social positions of our age--liberal, socialist, and conservative.

Product details

  • Hardcover: 381 pages
  • Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell; 1st Edition edition (13 Jan 1975)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0631156801
  • ISBN-13: 978-0631156802
  • Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (18 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 2,267,433 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • See Complete Table of Contents

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Product Description


"...This book is the best piece of sustained analytical argument in political philosophy to have appeared for a very long time." Mind "...complex, sophisticated and ingenious." Economist --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

About the Author

Robert Nozick was the Joseph Pellegrino University Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
First Sentence
IF the state did not exist would it be necessary to invent it? Read the first page
Explore More
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews
51 of 54 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Libertarian, or Property-tarian? 12 May 2004
Robert Nozick argues from the (Kantian) principle that nothing and nobody can use an individual as a means rather than an end. We are inviolable in ourselves as individuals and as owners of our property (legitimately acquired in the form of land etc.; or understood as our bodies/minds). Any boundary crossing not expressly consented to, is a violation of these fundamental negative rights. Understood as such, any state that seeks to redistribute through taxation is performing an unconsented-to boundary crossing, and is therefore guilty of violation of these fundamental rights.
It’s altogether a very impressive feat of logical, consistent argumentation from first principles. I find the book impeccable. I am not a libertarian after reading Nozick’s book, but it has forced me to devote a lot of time and energy to working out why I’m not a libertarian. After all, who can disagree with the principle of ‘don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want others to do to you’? The morality underlying Nozick’s edifice is entirely acceptable, and yet as the argument progresses I found myself getting more and more uncomfortable. The problem has to do with which rights you might agree are fundamental and inviolable. Is the right to property, however acquired, fundamental to liberty? Nozick argues that it is. Without justice in property, there is no justice. Or Freedom. Or Liberty. Without the concept of private property, we are all potentially slaves to the State.
Concomitant with that proposition is an attitude which can be labelled ‘individual atomism’. Nozick, in keeping with other libertarians like Von Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe believes that individuals are paramount, unique and indivisible. Nothing may impinge on them.
Read more ›
Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
21 of 24 people found the following review helpful
By A Customer
I simply had to say that this book, though certainly not perfect, is a very interesting (and even entertaining) piece which certainly gives Rawlsian liberals something to chew on. In complete contrast from what an earlier reviewer has said, this book is hardly an embarrasment to Nozick, and while he has altered his positions on some points in the book, his later work is hardly a repudiation of AS&U.
Nor, as this previous reviewer writes, is AS&U only currently of interest to Randian libertarians. This is absolutely preposterous, as Nozick actually went out of his way to dismiss Rand in subsequent work, and the forumlations of his arguments here are not Randian. They are far more Lockean. One might also mention that the book did win a National Book Award, which (to me at any rate), would seem to indicate that it is probably not your everyday Randian screed.
As a junior in college, I took a course in political philosophy at the University of Michigan, which boasts of the nation's top faculties in ethics. The introductory political philosophy course that I took there gave heavy doses of both Rawls and Nozick. People who know what they are talking about consider Nozick's book quite important in debate of contemporary political philosophy. Those who clearly don't know what they are talking about (see the 1-star review below) ... well, they simply slam the guy and the book.
In summary, well worth a read.
Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Wordy, but worthy 11 Feb 2014
By Athan
Format:Paperback|Verified Purchase
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 Sanskrit. And very often this reads like the rantings of a madman. But a fun madman. A humble, honest madman with some amazing moments of clarity.

Executive summary:

1. Nozick sketches how a protection agency that guarantees its members' safety and/or property within a particular locale, while striving to compensate non-members for potential transgressions by its members, not only is morally justifiable, but also isn't a million miles away from what we call a state. So if you are some type of anarchist who does not like it, you don't have to join (and you and your fellow anarchists obviously can't expect it to look after you) but if you're just some guy who does not have hangups like that and there's a choice of protection agencies you will naturally go for the one that's most effective in the area where you live. So it's a bit of a natural monopoly locally and it's not something too distasteful. And it's a de facto minimal state. So a multitude of such contiguous minimal states can arise without violating anybody's natural rights. Takes him more than 100 pages to prove the statements I'm repeating (potentially mangling) here, but that's the gist of it.

Read more ›
Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
33 of 38 people found the following review helpful
Having read Rawls as part of my degree, we were also given parts of Nozick to compare it with. On reading the book, it seemed to be a more impressive argument when you see how all of his different ideas link together. He does make a forceful critique of Marxism in particular, and notes how Marxist ideas of "expoitation" could render parts of the welfare state as exploitative. There are three big problems though.

First, this was written back in the days when political debates were Left v Right. It makes no mention at all of environmentalism, and the only time that it mentions animal rights is as an example of an absurdity [Nozick actually believes that eating meat is immoral, but he uses this as an example of how utilitarianism cannot be used as a grounds for the state]. Nozick works on the old premise that, if everyone works hard enough, everyone can get what they want. In this day and age, any such argument must at least respond to the environmentalist argument that this would make life on Earth unsustainable - and I can't see how anyone can convincingly argue that.

Secondly, the book is too American. He talks about universal rights, which belong to every human being, yet writes as if Americans are the only human beings of interest. What about those in other countries who have these rights yet may have greater difficulty in setting up his sort of state [e.g. greater corruption, poorer infrastructure]. If taxation is the theft that Nozick makes it out as, is it unjust that people in Iceland may have to pay greater taxes to protect their natural rights than people in Singapore do [due to admin costs]?
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Were these reviews helpful?   Let us know
Most Recent Customer Reviews
3.0 out of 5 stars Great service
I received the book a few days late, I complained and they were very nice about it... The book was perfect! Thanks
Published 6 months ago by lisa
4.0 out of 5 stars Fun to read and think about
This is my first review so I'll try to make it short. Nozick's book is essentially divided into two interchangeable parts: 1) His story about how governments appear out of a... Read more
Published 22 months ago by A Portuguse Person
1.0 out of 5 stars A very nasty piece of work.
Nozick is the considered the originator of the oxymoronic and totally imaginary 'anarcho capitalist' movement. Read more
Published on 3 Nov 2008 by Ellen S
5.0 out of 5 stars Vive l'anarchie, l'etat et l'Ethiopia!
Nozick's incisive arguments for individual freedom derive from moral conviction rather than economic theory. Read more
Published on 19 July 2008 by Pieter Uys
1.0 out of 5 stars Disappointingly little knowledge of philosophy for a philosophy prof.
Nozick starts from the assumption that the one basic human right in the "state of nature" is the right to hold property, absolutely, without regard to anyone else. Read more
Published on 29 July 2007 by Too many books
5.0 out of 5 stars Outstanding
Nozick is original, accessible, fascinating and above all persuasive. The gaps he leaves, like a justification for natural rights are the only parts of the book that dissapoint. Read more
Published on 3 Feb 2006
5.0 out of 5 stars This book is based on hate for the state and oppresion
This book is a great present for students doing social studies as it out lines the way the govenment is oppresing the state today. Read more
Published on 26 Sep 2001
5.0 out of 5 stars A Political Philosophy student's wish come true!
Rawls' A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism may provide a more comprehensive and credible philosophy than Anarchy, State and Utopia, but Nozick poses some very difficult... Read more
Published on 4 Dec 2000
5.0 out of 5 stars Philosophy as it should be practiced
The importance of this book is not just in its political content, but in its method. Unlike one of the other reviewers comments, I believe this is one of the most honest philosophy... Read more
Published on 6 Oct 2000
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
First post:
Prompts for sign-in

Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions

Look for similar items by category