Liberal theorist Will Kymlicka provides a devastating criticism of Rawlsian collectivism in his Contemporary Political Philosophy.
In the chapter on libertarianism, Kymlicka discusses the concept of self-ownership presented by Nozick in his now-famous Anarchy, State and Utopia.
Kymlicka wonders what freedom would look like if we accepted the libertarian principle of self ownership, but denied individual ownership of resources. We say, sure, you own yourself, but that is all you own. In order to prevent private ownership, let’s say that the collective has sovereignty over all natural resources.This is Rawlsian collectivism as expounded in A Theory of Justice. It’s also the state of affairs in the United States today, as defended by Thomas Nagel in his The Myth of Ownership.
Kymlicka anticipates Nozick’s response to a collectivist system which somehow manages to recognize self-ownership:
Nozick might claim that the assumptions which lead to liberal [i.e. collectivist] results, while formally compatible with self-ownership, in fact undermine the value of self ownership. For example, the [liberal] assumption that the world is jointly [i.e., collectively] owned, or that it should be collectively appropriated, would nullify the value of self ownership. How can I be said to own myself when I can do nothing without the permission of others? In a world of joint ownership, don’t Amy and Ben jointly own not only the world, but also in effect each other? Amy and Ben may have legal rights over themselves, but they lack independent access to resources.
Such insight into the totalitarian nature of collectivism, and yet, in the end, Kymlicka does choose collectivism in order to redistribute wealth.
