Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Studies in Marxism and Social Theory) [Paperback]

A comprehensive attack on the libertarian tradition of F. A. Hayek and Robert Nozick (best argued in the latter's 'Anarchy, State and Utopia'). G. A. Cohen argues self-ownership does not give the right-ranging rights that such theorists defend as our 'freedom'. Nozick's account, Cohen notes, is based on a vague notion of acquisition, but it actually relies on the assumption that resources are all initially unowned and up for grabs. If we took a different starting point, assuming they were jointly owned, or held in common, for example, then Cohen shows how we would reach quite different conclusions.

Well worth reading for anyone looking for holes in Nozick's arguments, but I think you have to start with 'Anarchy...' before you read this. Also possibly influential on the 'left-libertarians' such as Michael Otsuka who do take a different view of initial resources.

I am a libertarian, and I love this book. With enemies like Cohen, libertarians don't need friends! Cohen's arguments here are two-fold: First, he wants to argue against libertarianism, or, more specifically, Nozick; secondly, he wants to justify doing so to his liberal and left wing philosophical colleagues. This requires his showing why libertarianism needs to be taken seriously. As an exempler of this dichotomy, there are Cohen's two chapters on a basic premise of libertarian arguments, self-ownership. The first chapter is made up of several arguments as to why the notion of self-ownership is appealing, coherent, and has content; it not only defends self-ownership as being coherent against Kant, and possessing content against Dworkin, but also the thesis that, if people own themselves, then they cannot be forced to help others, and forcing them, via taxation, to help others as a condition of helping themselves undermines that self-ownership.

But the next chapter turns away from criticising the left to criticising libertarian arguments. Cohen argues that libertarians are wrong to argue that taxation is slavery, or that arguments used to support redistributive taxation undermines self-ownership. He also argues that Nozick's appeal to Kantianism can't support the thesis of self-ownership, and neither can pleas for personal autonomy. He notes that only one argument from Nozick can go through, and that is that taxation undermines self-ownership, as explained above. But, Cohen says, Nozick can't really support that position, since he favours courts and police in his minimal state.

And that is one of the benefits of Cohen to libertarians - many of such counter arguments are very weak: Nozick did support a minimal state providing courts and police and national defense. But nowhere in his libertarian workd did he defend taxation to fund that minimal state, and even if he did, many libertarians don't - Cohen's argument here shows that commitment to self-ownership should commit you to radical libertarianism, ie, voluntary statism, or market anarchism.

In all, Cohen is essential reading for any student of libertarianism, either for or against it, since he provides great and tough arguments against libertarianism for opponents of it, whilst also providing tools and arguments for libertarians to refine their own arguments and their own positions against their opponents.

This is a philosophical attack on capitalism. It is obviously written by a highly competent philosopher and I must admit I found it quite useful, but to my mind the tone is unpleasantly spiteful. It is as if the author is so committed to his political view (and so virulently opposed to the work - of Robert Nozick - that he is criticising) that the philosophy has to follow in order to justify. The author is not exploring with an open mind. I found some of the sentences tediously long with far too much comment in parenthesis - as if he is talking down to a simpleton. Some of the generalisations were, I felt, based on rather weak and unlikely counter-examples, yet the author seemed perfectly happy to rely on these as proving those generalisations.