Independents and the Dominant Protective Agency

In Chapter 4, Nozick examines the dynamic between a dominant protective agency and individuals who choose to remain independent, enforcing their own rights. He contemplates a scenario in which independents exist within the geographical territory of the agency. As an example, Nozick speculates about Native Americans who could have refused to integrate into white settler society after being forced off their land.

Nozick theorizes that a protective agency might attempt to isolate independents, creating a territory with internal and external boundaries. However, this approach faces challenges if independents bypass these boundaries using advanced means, such as helicopters. He suggests that the protective agency might instead allow independents to enforce their rights, subsequently assessing and responding to any wrongful actions. This raises questions about action against independents, the legitimacy of the protective agency defending its clients against perceived threats, and the independence of the protective agency’s clients in the face of punitive actions by independents. Nozick’s questions reveal the moral complications inherent in a dominant protective association’s actions toward those who choose to operate outside its protective framework.

Prohibition and Compensation

In this section, Nozick explores the moral implications of crossing an individual’s natural rights boundary, as outlined by

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now