In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick asserts that distributive justice in the sense of redistributive taxation embodies an extensive state that cannot be justified. Nozick’s argument against principles of justice that require a “pattern” consists of the entitlement theory, whether or not a distribution is determined to be just based on previous actions or at a single point in time, and whether or not a distribution should be “patterned”. These premises drives his conclusion that patterned distribution in terms of taxation inherently infringes on individual freedom. Nozick’s entitlement theory includes three core principles: justice in acquisitions, justice in transfer, and rectification of injustice. These three principles dictate how holdings are to be acquired, transferred, and accounted for if holdings were illegitimately acquired. Nozick determines that as long as individual actions and holdings adhere to these justice-preserving principles, the resulting distribution is just. A distinction exists between historical principles and end state principles in terms of a distribution. Historical principles requires the examination of historical details about how a distribution resulted to determine whether or not the distribution is just. Conversely, an end state principle only requires examining the distribution itself. …show more content…
If a million individuals paid, Chamberlain would gain $250,000. This distribution can only be just in examining how the distribution came to be. Only when the evidence presented that spectators paid for the tickets can the distribution be just. An utilitarian view of this distribution would only look at the distribution at a single time point and whether it maximizes the amount of happiness. Redistributing what Chamberlain earned seems unfair, but the evidence that rendered this unjust is neglected in the utilitarian
Robert Nozick uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain to develop his theories on entitlement and distribution by establishing his libertarian view of justice in chapter 7 of his book "Anarchy, Stat, And Utopia" . Wilt Chamberlain, the basketball star, charges fans twenty-five cents to watch him play. Nozick creates a world in which we are to assume that the actions leading to this point, for all people, are just. Chamberlain simply offers his services to those who wish to attend the event. Assuming that he continues his show for some time, and people continue to pay the twenty-five cent fee, Chamberlain could generate a great deal of revenue. The people who paid their twenty-five cents did so freely, and although they are left with less money, Wilt Chamberlain has become a very wealthy man. Furthermore, Nozick encourages this example to be used within one’s desired philosophical and political utopia, and it would be fair to say that Will acquired his earnings in a way that has not violated the rights of another individual. Because Chamberlain's earning arose from a just, distributive starting point, the voluntary support of his fans should also be considered just. However, to fully understand how Nozick draws his conclusions about the validity of Chamberlain’s financial gain, is to understand the framework for the historical and non-patterned lenses through which he views the minimal state.
Robert Nozick argues in his Entitlement Theory that there are three main topics in the justice of holdings: the acquisition of ‘un-held things’, the transfer of holdings, and the rectification of injustice in holdings.1 Nozick’s theory of what makes a transfer of holdings ‘just’ should be rejected for two key reasons and the rectification of injustice of holdings should be rejected for two key reasons.
Nozick takes this concept against the ideas of Rawl’s theory of justice and the concept of a social contract. Meaning that in a just society nothing should be subject to any political or social bargaining. Rawl opposes the classical and institutionalist utilitarian theory of justice in which morality is contractual, and claims that human virtues, truth and justice cannot be tradable. Furthermore, he believed that political institutions should have all powers over the lives of individuals and over the market economy conditions. Thus focusing more on resources, and how these resources should be redistributed in order to have a fair and equal social system. Under his belief the principles of social justice provide a mechanism that establishes the rights and duties of social institutions within a society, which defines a justified equitable sharing of benefits and burdens of social
Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.
According to Nozick, “Taxation of earnings from labor is on par with forced labor.” (Anarchy, State, Utopia, 169). Philosophers Robert Nozick and John Rawls take opposing stances on this matter. They illustrate their opinions and reasonings in their theories in order to advocate for their respective arguments. This paper will look to clarify and evaluate Nozick’s argument as well as Rawls’ response to Nozick’s claim that taxation is on par with forced labor. The goal of this paper is, therefore, to discuss both Rawls and Nozick’s theories in order to argue against Nozick’s reasoning and argument.
Why is it that a person has to offset his initial gain for the betterment of others? Rawls proposes this idea as the criterion for his second principle, the difference principle. What I argue however, is that the difference principle proposes to remove inequality from society but fails in this endeavor due to retaining enough inequality to benefit the disadvantaged, leaving the principle defective in its nature. This will be the question analyzed in this essay where I will first explain the two principles proposed by Rawls as well as the lexical order or priority, which is a central feature within A Theory of Justice. I...
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2011, January 15). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Holmes offers three criticisms of utilitarianism. How is one going to achieve it so that it does benefit the highest number of people? How do you decide how to distribute the benefits in the best possible way? I agree that it would be very hard to decide the best way to distribute the benefits equally. How would a person decide if you do it over time or all at once? Utilitarianism sounds like a good way to live, as there are times it is necessary to safe the individuals t...
In Robert Nozick Anarchy, State, and Utopia, he describes a machine that could stimulate any programmed experience when attached to the machine. With this experience machine a person could program the next two years of their life, not realizing they are floating in a tank attached to a machine. The experiences that are stimulated seem so real that person will actually perceive it as reality. After the two years have passed, the person will then have ten minutes to ten hours out of the tanks to reprogram the next experience for the next two years (Nozick 43). As a result, the experience machine is the greatest and only stimulus for their experience for the rest of their life. Nozick uses the experience
He goes on to illustrate this by creating the Wilt Chamberlain principle, the point of the example was to demonstrate what Nozick thinks, is wrong with patterned theories of justice such as that of Rawls. He has you suppose that you live in a society where the distribution of wealth is fair. And you got tickets to watch Chamberlin play, and right at the entrance there is a box asking for voluntary contribution of twenty-five cents to be given to the player because so many go and watch him play. The people can choose to put or not put in the twenty-five cents. Nozick then asks what right does the state have to take that money people voluntarily put into the box for the player. Nozicks point then being, all transfers of money at the game were voluntary and the state has no right to tax you for anything other then for
The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the
Although leaving an inheritance isn't allowed by Nielson's theory, Nozick (698) argues that implementing a patterned distributional theory of justice, such as Nielson's, would necessarily infringe on the freedom of the people. For example, we showed that passing down wealth is unjust under Nielson's theory, but the same logic applies to any transfer of wealth, since if society starts out with equality of conditions, and then one person transfers some wealth to another person, there would then no longer be equality of
Nozick agrees with the liberty principle proposed by Rawls, but he disagrees with the equality principle and the fashion in which resources are distributed. I believe the historical principle of distribution is one strength of Nozick’s ideas. The historical principle of distribution states that the justice of any distribution does not depend on how closely it resembles any form of an equality pattern but how the distribution came about (959). I also agree with the theory that people are entitled to anything they acquired voluntarily and anything that is transferred to them voluntarily (958). Nozick does not agree with redistribution of wealth because taking resources from one person to benefit others is not necessarily voluntary. The biggest weaknesses of Nozick’s idea of equality comes from the idea that taxation and federally funded programs would be unjust forcing everything to be owned privately. This creates the most issues because people are self-interested and the virtue of market may not create the balance which Nozick proposed. Public school systems and public roads being deemed illegitimate would create issues with access. Also, making taxation illegal would make it difficult to have services like a police force, fire department, court system, or penal system because they would have to be paid by the individual directly. The police and court systems could become corrupt
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
Anarchy is political and social disorder due to the absence of government control, right? Not always, used with proper theory and practice, anarchy can be used for a positive reform in society. Anarchist believe that government is unnecessary and even harmful in most situations. But the real question is, are enough people morally good to function together as one society? Anarchy is a stateless society in which the people really have the power.