Rawls Distributive Justice Analysis

According to Rawls, the basic structure of society is unjust in the sense that only the rich benefits whole the poor are left worse off. For Rawls a society is just when it maximizes liberty and minimizes inequalities (maximin principle). Based on the perception that society is unjust and unfair, Rawls develop the theory of distributive justice. His theory of distributive justice revolves around two principles; liberty and equality. Liberty grants us the right to have the utmost basic rights, such as freedom of speech. Equality allows all social and economic positions to be open to all, meaning that anyone applying has an equal chance of being hired regardless of what skills they have. To enforce the two principle of justice, we have to figure

Nozick objects to Rawls’ theory stating that his distributive justice theory is actually redistributive justice because Rawls is taking something that already exist and splitting it equally among others. Nozick felt that Rawls’ theory is ahistorical because it doesn’t talk about the process by which an individual come to hold their property. He believed that contrary to what Rawls is trying to achieve with the distributive justice theory, it actually promotes an unjust way to transfer property because redistributing resources (through taxation) results to stealing and forced labor. For Nozick, what determines justice in property is not the equal distribution but rather the ways in which we acquire those goods/property. He calls this the entitlement theory. Nozick’s entitlement theory states that the distribution of properties or holdings within a society is just if and only if everyone is entitled to what they have. In order to confirm this, he breaks it down into three principles in which we can obtain holdings justly; Justice in Acquisition,