8/12/2019 Gordon on Nozick

1/3

ohen o Nozick i Z t C ~ ~ e ~ ~ u i ~ ~ sZZeged Threat t Freedom 9

COHEN ON NOZICK: WILT CHAMBERLAIN S ALLEGED THREATTO FREEDOM

D AV I D GORDON

G, A . Cohen s Rober t Nozic k and W i l t Chamberl ain: How Pa tt er ns Pres erveL i b e r t y i s t h e mos t im p o r ta n t M a r x i s t c r i t i c i s m o f No zi ck . ( 1 ) Coh en s ai m i so n l y i n d i r e c t l y a c r i t i q u e o f N o zi c k s d efe ns e o f c a p i t a l i s m . i t s i mm ed ia te a imi s t o r e f u t e N o z i c k s m a jo r a rg ume nt a g a i n s t a r i v a l o f c a p i t a l i s m , s o c i a l i s m( p .5 ) . I n o r d e r t o r e f u t e N oz i ck , Cohen r i g h t l y m a i n t a i n s t h a t i t i s n ot enought o d em on st ra te t h a t s o c i a l i s m i s j u s t . But: e ve n i f h i s ( No zi ck s ) d e f i n i t i o no f j u s t i c e i s wrong . . he s t i l l h as a c l a i m a g a i n s t s o c i a l i s m , na me ly t h a thowever j u s t i t may be i t i s i nc om pa ti bl e w i t h l i b e r t y . . I t must also beproved that he has not shown that i t i s opposed t o l i b e r t y ( pp .5 -6 ). do n o tth in k th at Cohen has succeeded i n demonstrat : ing th a t No zic k s W i l t Chamberlainexample depends upon the p r i n c i p l e : ( 1 ) wh at ev er a r i s e s f ro m a j u s t s i t u a t i o nby j u s t s te ps i s i t s e l f j u s t , and what N o z ic k b e l i e v e s i s a c o r o l l a r y o f ( 1 ) :

( 2 ) Whatever ar ises from a j u s t s i t u a t i o n a s a r e s u l t o f f u l l y v o lu n ta r y t ra n s-a c t i o n s on t h e p a r t o f a l l l e g i t i m a t e l y conc:erned p er so ns i s i t s e l f j u s t (p.7).

Cohen rejects ( 2 ) o n t h e g ro un ds t h a t p e r so n s may v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r i n t o t r a n s -a c t i o ns f a i l i n g t o r e a l i z e what t h e i r outcome i s l i k e l y t o be. I f they d id be -come aware o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i r i nt e nd e d a c t i o n s , t h en t h ey m i g ht r e j e c t w i t hc o n s i d e r a b l e vehemence t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i r v o l u n t a r y b u t u ni n fo r me d a c t i o n s .

Cohen i s p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned w i t h someone s coming t o have immenselymore power t ha n o t h e r s as t h e r e s u l t o f v o l u n t a r y a c t s : what i f e v e ry o n e s g i v i n g

i l t Chamberlain a qua rt er enhances hi spow er ove r everyone else ?t h i s a l l e g e d l y d i r e r e s u l t , Cohen p ro po se s th e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e : ( 3 ) Whatevera r i s e s f ro m a j u s t s i t u a t i o n as a r e s u l t o f f u l l y v o l u n t a r y t ra n s ac t io n s wh ic ha l l t r a n sa g e n ts w ou ld s t i l l ha ve ag re ed t o i f the y had known what t he r es ul ts o fso t r a ns a c ti n g were t o be i s i t s e l f j u s t ( p. 9) . A s Cohen c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t ,t he power o f h i s p r i n c i p l e t o s up po rt c a p i t a l i s m i s extremely weak; i f even ones o c i a l i s t d i s a p p ro v e s o f t h e n o n - e g a l i t a r i a n o utcome o f some t r a n s a c t i o n t o w h ic h

he has been a pa r ty , those engaged i n the t r a ns ac t io n i n ques t ion cannot appea lt 3 ) t o s up p or t a c l a i m t h a t i t i s j u s t .

But why i s t h i s a problem? A s 3 ) i s p r e se n t ed , i t s i mp l y s t a t e s a s u f f i -c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r a t r a n s a c t i o n t o be j u st :. I t does ot say th a t a t r a n s a r -t i o n t h a t d o e s n t meet t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f ( 3 ) i s u n j u s t : a su p po r te r o f ( 2 ) c o u l d(and no d ou bt w o ul d ) f u l l y a cc e p t 3 ) . For (3) t o have any e f f e c t as a c r i t i -c i sm o f Noz ick , i t mu st b e t a k en t o be a n e ce s sa r y c o n d i t i o n o f j u s t i c e .

But then i t i s o b v i o u s l y much t o o r e s t r i c t i v e . Few i f a n y t r a n s f e r swould be cons ide red j u s t i f ( 3 ) i s a necessary co nd i t io n. Anyone who had i nany way a t a l l m i sj u d ge d t h e outcome o f a s i t u a t i o n c o u l d by ( 3 ) c a s t i g a t e t h eoccasion f o r h i s m i s f o r t u n e as u n j u s t . I s i t a s t a k i n g (3) as a necessary con-d i t i o n w ou ld h a ve i t r e a l l y u n j u s t i f le nd money t o someone who procee ds t omake a k i l l i n g i n the marke t? Had known o f the outcome, migh t ve r y we l ld i sapprove, s ince had inves ted in the way he d i d , would have made the k i l l i n gmyself. By 3 ) , my wi s hi n g h a d n t lo ane d th e money makes my ha vi ng done sou n j u s t . B ut t h i s i s s u r e l y wrong. Cohen b e l i e v e s t h a t s t ro n g e r p r i n c i p l e s t h an(3) may be v a l i d , b u t he f a i l s t o su p pl y a ny, w h i l e c o n t i n u i n g t o t h i n k t h a tN o z i c k s 2 ) i s t o o s tr o n g . Per ha ps C oh en s f a i l u r e t o su p pl y a p l a u s i b l e p r i n -c i p l e s ho u ld i nd uc e u s t o examine h i s c r i t i c i s m o f (2 ) more c lose ly.

s a c t i o n s may r e s u l t i n someone s a t t a i n i n g i n o r d i n a t e p ower.

To circumvent

H i s main po in t seems t o be, a s p r ev io us ly suggested , th a t vo lu n t a r y t r a n -

8/12/2019 Gordon on Nozick

2/3

20 David Gordon

Nozick i s then ask ing us whether we do no t ag ree tha t any re s t r i c t io nsw h ic h wo ul d f o r b i d t h e C ha m be r la j n t r a n s a c t i o n w ou ld b e u n j u s t i f i e d .So construe d, the argument i s n o t q u e s ti o n - be g g i ng b u t i n c o n c l u s iv e .F or c o n si d e ra t i on s w hi ch m ig h t j u s t i f y r e s t r i c t i o n s a r e n o t c an va sse d,such as the fa c t th a t the con t ra c t may genera te ino rd ina te power. I ti s e as y t o th in k th a t wha t happens a f t e r war ds i s t h a t C ha mb er la in e a t sl o t s o f c h o c ol a t e , s ees l o t s o f movies , and buys lo t s o f s u b s c r i p t i o n s

t o expensive s o c i a l i s t jo ur na ls . But , as ha ve in si s t ed , we must remem-ber t he cons ider able power he can now ex er cis e over ot he rs . (p.13)

I t seems t o me th at Cohen begs th e que st ion here . What e x a c t l y does he mean bycons ide rab le power ? Is t j u s t th at ch am be rl ai n now has more command ove r

resources than those who d i d n t be ne f i t a s much as he d i d f rom vo lu n t a ry t r an s -f e r s ? I f so, why i s t h i s s t a t e o f a f f a i r s bad? Cohen g iv es no a rgument. On theot he r hand, does Cohen mean th a t some ot he r f a c t s f o l l o w from Chamberlainls hav-in g gr ea te r command over resour ces t han ot he rs ? Once more, Cohen does no t t e l lus what t h es e f a c t s a r e, how t h e y f o l l o w f r om an i n e g a l i t a r i a n d i s t r i b u t i o n , o rwhy they ar e bad. suspect th a t what Cohen prob ably has i n mind i s t h e s t a n d a r dM a rx i st c r i t i c i s m t h a t a c l a s s o f c a p i t a l i s t s mi gh t own a l l c a p i t a l i n a s o ci e t yand compel a l l t he l aboure r s i n t h a t a l l e g e d l y f r e e s o c i e t y t o work f o r them,T h i s i s i n f a c t C oh en s ma in c o un t e r t o N o z i c k s c h a rg e t h a t s o c i a l i s m v i o l a t e s

l i b e r t y and w i l l be considered below.Before t u r n i ng t o t h i s a rgument o f Cohen s , however, I w i s h t o c o n s i de r

a no th er o b j e c t i o n o f Cohen s t o t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e i l t Chamber la in t r ans fe r.What i f most peop le want t o p rese rve an eg a l i t a r i a n soc ie t y and do no t wantChamberlain or anyone e ls e t o have a gr ea te r tha n average command over t h e r e s -o ur ce s o f s o c i e t y ? O f course a s i n g l e p e r s o n s p a y i ng a q u a r t e r ( t o C h am b er ~ a in )w i l l make no apprec iab le d i ffe rence i f t h e r e s t a r e a l r e a d y g o in g t o do so. Buta conven t ion migh t evo lve no t t o make such payments, o r more s imply, the re cou ldbe a d e m o c r a t i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e d t a x a t i o n s ys te m w hi ch m a i n t a i n s w ea l t h d i f f e r e n -t i a l s w i t h i n a cc ep ta bl e l i m i t s (p.12). O f course, people who want eq u a l it y canr e f r a i n f r o m t r a n s a n c t io n s t h a t m i g h t l e a d away f r o m t h e t y p e o f s o c i e t y t h e ywish; but why do they have the r i g h t t o coerce othe rs f o r whom ma int ain ing equa-l i t y i s l e ss i m po rt an t?

But, Cohen mig ht answer, co er ci on i s n o t p e c u l i a r t o s o c i a l i s t systems. I nf a c t (and t h i s c o n s t i tu t e s h i s r e p l y t o t h e c l a i m t h a t s o c i al i s m v i o l a t e s l i b e r t y ) ,u n d e r c a p i t a l i s m some an l i v e wi t hou t su bor d ina t ing themselves , bu t most cannot .The l a t t e r f a c e a s t r u c t u r e ge n er a te d by a h i s t o r y o f ma rk e t t r a n s a c t i o n s i nwhich, i t i s r e as o na b le t o s ay, t h e y a r e f o r c e d t o work f o r some ot he r person rgroup . This d i v i s io n be tween th e powerfu l and th e powerless wi t h r espec tt o t h e a l i e n a t i o n o f l a b o ur power i s t h e h e a r t o f t he s o c i a l i s t o b j ec t i on t oc a p i t a l s m (p. 1 8 ). Cohen, i n e l a b o r a t i n g t h i s o b j e c t i o n , o b j e c t s t o N o z ic k sr e s t r i c t i o n o f c oe rc io n t o s i t u a t i o n s i n w hi ch t h e a c t i o n s w hic h r e s t r i c t t h ea l t e r n a t i v e s v i o l a t e r i g h t s . For someone s ch oi ce t o be forced, i t i s unneces-s a ry t h a t a p e rs on o r g r ou p be a s si gn e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n s r e s -t r i c t i n g i t and a f o r t i o r i u nn ec es sa ry t h a t a pe rs on o r g r ou p be i l l e g i t i m a t e l yr e s t r i c t i n g h i s a l t e r n a t i v e s (p.20).

I t seems t o me u nn ec es sa ry t o e v a l u a t e t h e j u s t i c e o f Co he n s o b j e c t i o n t oNoz ick s approach.Cohen has presented no argument t ha t workers ar e forc ed i n i s sense t o work f o rc a p i t a l i s t s i n f r e e economy. I n p o i n t o f f a c t , i n a l a t e r e ss ay w h ic h a pp ea re di n the I sa i ah Be r l in f e s t s c h r i f t , Cohen h imse l f seems t o acknowledge th a t he hasno t ye t shown t ha t such a c la im can be sustained. 2 ) A s h e p o i n t s o u t , w o rk e rsu nd er c a p i t a l i s m d o n t h ave t o r em ai n i n t h e i r s o - c a l l e d s e r v i l e s t a t u s ; t h eymay, i f they wish, save up and open small businesses o f t h e i r own, as many actu a-l l y do. Tha t o the r s do no t do so, whether f o r r easons o f w or ke r s s o l i d a r i t yas Cohen con jec tu res o r f o r more pe r sonal mot ives , i s no p roo f o f th e ex i s t en ceo f f o r c e d c h o ic e . I t seems t o me th a t Cohen s arguments ag ai ns t No zick a rev i t i a t e d by t h e u n s u p p o r t e d a s s u m p t i o n o f t h e t r u t h o f a c o n t r o v e r s i a l M a r x i s td o c t r i n e .

T h i s pe rh ap s s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t f o l l o w s f ro m t h e f a c t t h a t

8/12/2019 Gordon on Nozick

3/3

Cohen on N o z i c k i l t Chamberlain s Alleged ? h e a t t o Freedom 2

Notes

1. Erkenn tn i s , Vol . 11 , No. 1 (May, 1977), pp.5-23. Page numbers i n pare nthe ses

2, The re le va nt passage occ urs i n Cohen s essay, Cap i ta l is m, Freedom, and the

i n t he t e x t r e f e r t o t h i s a r t i c l e .

Pr o le t ar ia t , . i n Aian Ryan (ed.) , The Idea o f Freedom: Essays i n Honour o fI sa iah Be r l i n (Oxford : Oxford Un iv er s i ty P ress , 1979), p.24. Cohen re s t s h i s

c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e p r o l e t a r i a t i s an i mp ri s on e d c l a s s on an a ss um pt io no f s o l i d a r i t y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , e a ch r em ai ns f r e e t o l e a v e . T h i s seems anodd approach t o d e f i n i n g i mp ri so nm en t- I s n t t h e s o l i d a r i t y v ol u n t a r y ? I fi t i s , i n what way i s t h e p r o l e t a r i a t f o r ce d ?

0 000 0

FEM LE LEGISL TIVE REPRESENT TION

ND THE ELECTOR L SYSTEM

FRANCIS G CASTLES

E ve ry wh er e women a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y u n d e r r ep r e se n t ed i n n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t u r e sand so have a markedly reduced op po rt un i t y f l o r r e c r u i t m e n t i n t o go ve rn me nt ale l i t e s . I n o n l y a m i n o r i t y o f l i b e r a l d em oc ra ti c s t a t e s i s f e m a l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o nas hi gh as 10 p e r c e n t an d t h e r e a r e f ew s i g n s o f an y i n c r e a s i n g c u r v e o f r e p r e -s e n t a t i o n w i t h l e n g t h o f t i m e s i n c e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f f e ma l e s u f f r a g e (Putnam,1976, p.33). Under such circu mstan ces, i t i s h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g i f c r i t i c s havec o n c en t r a te d much o f t h e i r a t t e n t i o n on g e ne r al c u l t u r a l and s t r u c t u r a l e xp la na -t i on s o f t h e f a i l u r e of women t o a t t a i n a f u l l r o l e i n d em oc ra ti c p o l i t i c a l s ys -tems. Never the less , t he r e has a lways been a degree o f cu r i o s i ty abou t the ex ten to f c r o ss - na t io n al v a r i a t i o n i n f emale rep res len ta t ion . A s e a rl y as 1926, AlzadaComstock was asking i n t he pages o f t h e PSR: What i s i t a bo ut t h e b a r r e n n o r t h(of Scandinavia) which stimulates women t o g o i n t o law, m ed i ci n e and p o l i t i c s ?And what i s th e r e abou t b lu e Medi te rranean sk i es which keeps them ou t o f th e p ro -

fess ions and ou t o f po l i t i c s ? (Comstock, 1926, p .379) . Her answer po in ted im pl i -c i t l y t o c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s a s t h e r ea so n, b u t more r e c e n t a t t e mp t s t o map o u tand e x p l a i n v a r i a t i o n i n women s l e g i s l a t i v e p resence ( see Krauss, 1974; Newland,1975; Va l l a n c e , 1979; Kohn, 1980; Bogdanor, 1981; L ov en du sk i and H i l l s , 1981)have tended t o p r e f e r i n s t i t ~ t i o n a l x p la n at i on s and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , e x pl a na t io n si n te rms o f the impact o f s p e c i f i c t y p e s o f e l e c t o r a l s y s t e m .

a r e a . F i r s t , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e e xa ct e x t e nt o f f em al e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s aconsequence o f an e x t r e m e ly co mp le x i n t e r a c t i o n o f c u l t u r a l , s t r u c t u r al a n d i n s t i -t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s i n a p a r t i c u l a r n a t i o n a l c o n t e x t , and f o r t h i s r ea so n many s t u d i e shave, unders tandab ly, p r e fe r re d coun t ry -by-cou n t ry an a l ys i s to a more c ross -na t i on al approach. Second, even th e s im ple st dat a on female re pr es en ta t i on i sq u i t e ha rd to come by, s inc e re fe re nce works - w he th er n a t i o n a l o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l -a r e s i n g u l a r l y u n h e l p f u l i n c a t e g o r i s i n g l e g i s l a t i v e membership by g en de r. T h i r d ,i n s o f a r as ou r f o c u s o f i n t e r e s t i s i n t h e i mp ac t o f e l e c t o r a l s ys te ms , t h e num-ber o f cases which can be ca teg ori sed i n a p a r t i c u l a r way i s o f t e n v e r y s m a ll ,which means th a t con cl us ion s must be ve ry t e n ta t iv e . When Japan i s the only demo-c r a t i c c o u n t r y u s i n g t h e S i n g l e No n - Tr a n sf e r ab l e Vo te ( S N T V ) , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t od i s t i n g u i s h t h e e f f e c t s o f t h a t e l e c t o r a l sys tem f ro m o t h e r c u l t u r a l and s t r u c -t u r a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s o f t h e Japanese s i t u a t i o n . D e sp i te t he se d i f f i c u l t i e s somec r o s s - n a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s i s p o s s i b l e u s i n g b r o ad d i s t i n c t i o n s between t y p e s o fe l e c t o r a l sy ste m and u t i l i s i n g t h e l a r g e s t p o s s i b l e number o f c as es f o r w hi chr e c e nt i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r o c u r ab l e .

T he re a r e a number o f s e r i o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s w h ic h c o n f r o n t r e s ea r ch i n t h i s