Nozick's Framework Of Utopia Analysis

Plato arranges value in the domain of being and sets up its embodiment without any relation to the presence of things in true-life. Nevertheless, as I already mentioned, social utopias tend to be despotic and totalitarian. In our days, only extreme groups of far-right and far-left character are prone in such autarchic regimes, which are accommodated by a unitarian character. If Plato is considered by most as the father of political philosophy in the West, he might be considered the father of coherent utopian thought in western philosophy as well. With Plato utopia takes its first form and is established in the field of philosophy. In his work, a lifetime work, he does not try to describe the states, but to find their characteristic traits

Thus, I think that Nozick’s “Framework for Utopia” may be the correct theoretical framework which will comprehend and accommodate various and different in nature perspectives, “the mass of facts and points of view” of our age. The term utopia defines a world which fits everyone’s needs, a world in which everyone would be as happy as they can be. Therefore, a utopian world is a world accepted and wanted by each one of us. Nevertheless, perfect social structures and human relations never existed, and cannot exist for pragmatic reasons. The main difficulty that a utopian world faces is the fact that whatever is considered right, good, and therefore accepted by you, it is not accepted by me, and vice versa. This is the main reason that most people reject utopias as impractical and impossible. Yet, I consider that the concept of utopia remains a fascinating philosophical topic. I think that Nozick’s “Framework for Utopia” provides an interesting analysis of the concept, which offers a more productive approach on the matter. Nozick’s book, as a whole, defends a libertarian perspective. I intent to focus, if not exclusively, mostly on the third part of the book. As Nozick states in the end of the chapter: “The argument of this chapter starts (and stands) independently of the argument of Parts I and II and converges to their result, the minimal state (limited to the narrow functions of protection against fraud, theft, force, enforcement of contracts, etc.), from another