Philosopher Challenges Community 'Say' in Development, Citing Nozick's Individual Rights Theory

Morgantown, WV – Philosopher Chris Freiman recently sparked discussion on social media by challenging the notion that individuals should automatically have a say in local development simply because it affects them. In a tweet, Freiman explicitly stated, > "I should have a say in what gets built near me because it affects me” is a bad take. As Nozick points out, whom other people decide to date can affect you but that doesn’t mean you get a say in the matter." This commentary draws directly from the work of renowned libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick.

Chris Freiman, a Professor of General Business in the John Chambers College of Business and Economics at West Virginia University, is known for his work in political philosophy, normative ethics, and applied ethics. His academic background includes publications such such as "Unequivocal Justice" and "Why It’s OK to Ignore Politics," often exploring libertarian perspectives on societal issues. He previously served as an Associate Professor of Philosophy at William & Mary.

The core of Freiman's argument references Robert Nozick, particularly his seminal 1974 work, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozick, a key figure in Anglo-American analytic philosophy, argued for a minimal state limited to protection against force, theft, and fraud, and the enforcement of contracts. His philosophy emphasizes individual rights as "side constraints," meaning that an individual's rights cannot be violated, even if doing so would lead to a greater overall good for society.

Nozick's entitlement theory posits that individuals have rights to their lives, liberty, and the fruits of their labor, derived from the principle of self-ownership. The analogy concerning dating, as cited by Freiman, illustrates that while others' choices (like whom they date) might have external effects on an individual, this does not grant that individual a right to control those choices. Extending this to property, Nozick's framework suggests that the external effects of a property owner's legitimate use of their land do not automatically grant neighbors a right to veto that use.

This philosophical stance implies that the right to develop one's property, within legal boundaries, is a fundamental individual liberty that should not be subject to community approval based solely on perceived impact. It underscores a libertarian perspective that prioritizes individual autonomy and property rights over collective decision-making in matters of private land use, challenging common approaches to zoning and urban planning that emphasize community input.