9.03 Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick (Nonfiction)
Nozick is a political philosopher who argues in favor of the libertarian "minimal state," sometimes called a "night-watchman state." The argument in
Anarchy, State and Utopia is divided into three sections. In the first section, Nozick argues against anarchism. He claims that even if we began in an anarcho-capitalist state of nature, a minimal state would arise naturally without violating anyone's rights. Since no rights have been violated, such a state is morally justified.
In the second section, Nozick argues against socialism and other forms of statism. In his view, no growth of the state beyond the "minimal" state is morally justifiable since any expansion necessarily involves an uncompensated infringement on the rights of at least some citizens. He spends a good chunk of this section refuting John Rawls and his writing on this subject.
Nozick realizes that the night-watchman state often isn't viewed as being very exciting and that many people with utopian leanings drift to various brands of statism. In the third section, he tries to illustrate how a framework in which individuals are free to join various communitites and live as they choose is in fact a desirable arrangement that ought to be more compelling for utopian-minded folks.
Anarchy, State and Utopia is a rigorous work of political philosophy. I've read it twice and I still don't claim to have fully mastered every little twist and turn Nozick takes. His thinking is heavily influenced by economics and game theory, and these show up from time to time in his analysis. Still, this is a surprisingly lively book that can be enjoyed by any educated reader. Nozick writes with a dry sense of humor, and is famous for illustrating his arguments with quirky examples and thought experiments (e.g. the sadist with his arm-breaking machine, the man who derives pleasure from leaving books on people's doorsteps, individuals incorporating themselves and selling off shares of their rights, etc.). Nozick is also quite explicit about where he thinks his theory is weak, and such honesty is admirable.
One needn't be inclined toward libertarianism to find this interesting and challenging reading.