In this article, we discuss Nozick, Adam Smith, Libertarianism, Minimal Government, Efficiency, Classical Liberalism, and how they apply to public policy.

We have discussed the basic principles of analysing public policy, we have covered Rawls and utilitarians, and we have covered Libertarians policies in practise in the United Kingdom over several aspects:

Monetary Policy

Prisons

Courts

Immigration

Drugs

Policing

So now we shall cover some of the more theoretical ways of justifying, analysing, and measuring libertarian thought; we turn to two famous thinkers: Nozick and Adam Smith, we provide a mathematical and graphical model of their thoughts, and then we apply those thoughts to a policy (UBI) to show how to measure it.

Nozick’s Principle of Minimal Government:

Nozickian Rights have the idea that it is wrong to injure a person or take their property for any reason, except with his consent (unless that would conflict with someone else keeping their rights, property, or person) (Dworkins, 1977). It is somewhat similar to the Libertarian Non-Aggression Pact. There is also the argument that, for all of the immediate benefits of Liberal/Redistributive policies for the wider society, that these policies will reduce the total efficiency of the economy, reducing





Mutual Protection and Minimal State:

Government is a binding together against external threats; governments maintain monopoly on force. Government must maintain law, and protection of order (Bellinger, 2007).

Nozick himself calls this the ‘Nightwatchmen State’, a state that exists only and purely to protect property and person (Dworkins, 1977). The state may not do anything, not even tax, outside of only supporting the police (something that the Libertarians would find very popular).At most, it can uphold the law, reduce the powers and laws of government, and punish those who go against the law.

Just acquisition and just transfer:

Determine which means of acquisition are ethical and which are not; all ethical wealth is a consensual transfer of wealth (Bellinger, 2007).

Nozick explains further: anything gained legally and justly are yours to have and do with (Dworkins, 1977). Nozick argues that any attempt to redistribute money, goods, privileges, etc. is doomed to fail; turn your back for one second, people trade, and inequality returns again. To maintain a state of equality would return constant and patterned interference by the government, which is intolerable in any truly free state. Better to have unequal but consensual freedom than enforced and unlikely equality.

Therefore, people who agree with Nozick (such as Libertarians) tend to believe that any kind of taxation is unethical, as it is without consent (Taxation is Theft).

Moral Side Constraints:

Limits on what individuals and groups may do to pursue their goals. Once limits are set, policies should only meet these goals (E.g. if a society decides that they must provide nutrition for all, a society simply must ensure that they provide the least well-off with food, and no more) (Bellinger, 2007).

Criticism:

One criticism of Nozick is that the rights chosen to be upheld are arbitrary; why is the right to property more important than the right to be concerned about other citizens in your country? Is freedom to consume drugs more important than the potential death of many citizens?

Another argument; Nozick is all or nothing. Why is a small injustice (the taxing of your money to provide schools, education for all, an army, etc) being considered as badly as stopping all trade? Should taxation be placed on the same level as a dictatorship? Nozick doesn’t consider the degree of government interference, that perhaps taxing the exceedingly wealthy 45%, and providing healthcare, policing, etc, is not the same as simply stopping them working. (Dworkins,1977).



Nozick Graphical Representation:

If society were to provide a minimum income level, and use redistribution to get it, we would an L shape due to requirement of that minimum level of utility. We could use either the larger neutral transfer curve, or the smaller non-neutral transfer curve.