So let's talk about some basic features of Nozick's account as a way into this, and contrasting them with, with other people. Like Rawls he's a hypothetical social contract theorist. He knows there never was a social contract and instead he's going to say, let's think about the society that might have come about if we got rid of political institutions. Again, he's not going to say think about pre-political people, or pre-social man, or anything like that. People like us, people like you and me, we just took away the state. What would actually happen? So it's not a hypothetical thought experiment about what you would choose in, in Rawls' sense of choose in reflective equilibrium. Remember, going back and forth towards your own assumptions between your own assumptions and his argument that was Rawls' idea of reflective equilibrium. Nozick's going to say no, think about what would happen, knowing what we know about people and knowing what we know about various things, importantly, he's going to say knowing what we know about power. so, it's a hypothetical account with some differences from Rawls'. It's an invisible hand account. The main invisible hand account we looked at in this course was Marx's, right? Marx had an invisible hand account whereby although capitalists are competing with one another to produce efficient outcomes. It works for a while but then as a byproduct of their competition the rate of profit goes down, it becomes uncompetitive and it falls apart. That's an invisible hand account is, is the idea made famous by Mandeville and Adam Smith, that the collective outcome is a by-product of people's intentional actions, what they think they're doing. And Nozick very much has an invisible hand argument as well, but a different one from the ones we've looked at. Another thing Nozick is doing, is that he is making an empirical argument and a normative argument sort of in tandem, in parallel. And in this sense, he's like Bentham, remember, Bentham says, right at the beginning of his introduction to the principles in, of morals and legislation. He says while the principle of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance, both explains what will happen and is a guide to what we should do. Right, both. And so he goes back and forth between the empirical and the normative. And that too is something that, that Nozick does. He's going to give an account of what would actually happen if you took away the state and that's going to be a guide to the principles that should govern what would happen when we think about the organization of politics. And finally, let's talk I, I'll just mention, he, his theory of rights as side-constraints is very different than Rawls' theory of rights as side-constraints, and there's a kind of debate about who is the real Kantian here. Because what basically what Nozick is going to say is that Rawls talks a good game but doesn't deliver, because what Rawls says is, I'm not going to presuppose any particular conception of the good life. And then, you know, when you dig in, it actually's got a thin theory of the good. And then when you dig further, we see it's, it's even thicker than he wanted to acknowledge, right? Be, all those assumptions about human psychology and risk aversion and all of that stuff and, and so Nozick's very onboard with that critique of roles. He's, he's going to say, I'm Robert Nozick and the one who really has no theory of the good. So I'm going to think of rights as side-constraints on your actions. So it's a deontological theory, not a teleological theory. But it's going to say, unlike Rawls, I'm really going to deliver. Right? So it's a hypothetical account, it's an invisible hand account, it's both empirical and normative, and it purports to be a genuinely Kantian social contract theory. Okay another thing to say is that it's, it's in a way another version of the rights utility synthesis combined, geared to combining individual freedom with a scientific account of politics. So it's very much in the spirit of the enlightenment tradition, and indeed I think Nozick is the truest of true believers in the enlightenment tradition and a fitting figure for us to finish with because of that fact and he will be the last enlightenment thinker that we're going to discuss in the course.