compensation principles are both fallacious and result in unlimited despotism. Compensation, in the theory of punishment, is simply a method of trying to recompense the victim after a crime occurs; it can never justify the initial violation of individual rights. Nozick’s theory of “nonproductive” exchanges is invalid since in economic theory all voluntary exchanges are by definition productive, so that the prohibition of "nonproductive" risky activities and hence the ultra-minimal state falls on this account alone. Contrary to Nozick, there are no “procedural rights,” and therefore no way to get from his theory of risk and nonproductive exchange to the compulsory monopoly of the ultra-minimal state. Nozick’s minimal state would, on his own grounds, justify a maximal State as well. The only “invisible hand” process, on Nozick’s own terms, would move society from his minimal State "back to anarchism". The American legal scholar Arthur Allen Leff criticized Nozick in his 1979 article "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law". Leff stated that Nozick built his entire book on the bald assertion that "individuals have rights which may not be violated by other individuals", for which no justification is offered. According to Leff, no such justification is possible either. Any desired ethical statement, including a negation of Nozick's position, can easily be "proved" with apparent rigor as long as one takes the licence to simply establish a grounding principle by assertion. Leff further calls "ostentatiously unconvincing" Nozick's proposal that differences among individuals will not be a problem if like-minded people form geographically isolated communities. Philosopher Jan Narveson described Nozick's book as "brilliant". Cato Institute fellow Tom G. Palmer writes that Anarchy, State, and Utopia is "witty and dazzling", and offers a strong criticism of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. Palmer adds that, "Largely because of his remarks on Rawls and the extraordinary power of his intellect, Nozick's book was taken quite seriously by academic philosophers and political theorists, many of whom had not read contemporary libertarian (or classical liberal) material and considered this to be the only articulation of libertarianism available. Since Nozick was writing to defend the limited state and did not justify his starting assumption that individuals have rights, this led some academics to dismiss libertarianism as 'without foundations,' in the words of the philosopher Thomas Nagel. When read in light of the explicit statement of the book's purpose, however, this criticism is misdirected". Libertarian author David Boaz writes that Anarchy,