On p. 272 of Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick writes the following:

Economically well-off persons desire greater political power, in a nonminimal state, because they can sue this power to give themselves differential economic benefits.  Where a locus of such power exists, it is not surprising that people attempt to use it for their own ends.  The illegitimate use of a state by economic interests for their own ends is based upon a preexisting illegitimate power of the state to enrich some persons at the expense of others.  Eliminate that illegitimate power of giving differential economic benefits and you eliminate or drastically restrict the motive for wanting political influence.  True, some persons will thirst for political power, finding intrinsic satisfaction in dominating others.  The minimal state best reduces the chances of such takeover or manipulation of the state by persons desiring power or economic benefits, especially if combined with a reasonably alert citizenry, since it is the minimally desirable target for such takeover or manipulation.  Nothing much is to be gained by doing so; and the cost to the citizens if it occurs is minimized.  To strengthen the state and extend the range of its functions as a way of preventing it from being used by some portions of the populace makes it a more valuable prize and a more alluring target for corrupting by anyone able to offer an officeholder something desirable; it is, to put it gently, a poor strategy.

What does this say about the outrage that has been expressed about the bailouts directed at Wall Street?  What does this say about questions about the scale and scope of state activity in general? How does it impact the way one must think through the BHL project?