Nozick's Distribution Of Wealth

LITERATURE REVIEW Define Wealth: Wealth usually refers to money, property or something which has economic value attached to it. It is the abundance of objects of value and also the state of having accumulated these objects. The use of the word itself assumes some socially-accepted means of identifying objects, land, or money as "belonging to" someone, i.e. a broadly accepted notion of property and a means of protection of that property that can be invoked with minimal (or, ideally, no) effort and expense on the part of the owner. Concepts of wealth vary among societies.

LITERATURE REVIEW Define Wealth: Wealth usually refers to money, property or something which has economic value attached to it. It is the abundance of objects of value and also the state of having accumulated these objects. The use of the word itself assumes some socially-accepted means of identifying objects, land, or money as "belonging to" someone, i.e. a broadly accepted notion of property and a means of protection of that property that can be invoked with minimal (or, ideally, no) effort and expense on the part of the owner. Concepts of wealth vary among societies.

Rawls ideas on economic and social justice provide a more just system than the ideas of Nozick because of these concerns for the least advantaged. Although, people should have a right to accumulate their own wealth and hold onto it, we can see that focusing on the process view can ultimately lead to an end result that is unjust for the society as a whole. Nozick maximizes individual liberties, but he excludes the restrictive liberties that Rawls’s second principle describes. Under Nozick’s theory, those who are least advantaged do not get a fair shot in society. Furthermore, Rawls proves that sacrificing certain individual liberties is morally justified if it creates an end-result that is just.

This paper will examine the disparities that exists in wealth distribution between the rich and the poor. Taking into account the fact that most of the wealth in this world is owned only by a small percentage of the population, we will examine the potential application of wealth redistribution to bridge the gap between the wealthy and the poor and look at the implication both economically and socially. It is a fact that the rich feel they are entitled to keep what they have worked for and would therefore the idea of being taxed more with be met with resilience. To help determine the applicability of wealth redistribution we will apply ethical theories to arrive at meaningful conclusions without violation of human right and demoralization of investors. Wealth inequality is the unequal distribution in the net worth of people in a country or the world at large.

If the economy is doing well it is likely that more citizens will own property instead of rent. When the economy is not doing well, the money stops moving and the government may not collect as many taxes. There are two major views on the government’s role in the economy, the Keynesian view, and laissez faire. The Keynesian view is often held by liberals and democrats. This is the belief that it is the government’s responsibility to regulate and attempt to manipulate the economy.

However, the church and other religious denominations thrive from others’ prosperity and income. Capitalism is a definite social justice issue. One reason why people do not necessarily feel obligated to help others less fortunate than him or herself is because the economy focuses on individualism, which leads to greed and hoarding. Another reason why capitalism is a social justice issue is that it deprives certain... ... middle of paper ... ...ject to all kinds of taxation and regulation. Today in our society, we need government's permission to drive, to work, to open and to run a business, and even to own and hold property.

*******So no one can forcibly transfer wealth from one individual to another. Hence, any principle that follows a pattern of distribution of wealth any is inherently unjust. So according to Nozick any patterned theory leads to injustice as they infringe upon an individual's basic rights of liberty and freedom. However, Nozick believes that the only instance where someone's wealth can be forcibly ta... ... middle of paper ... ...wealth and property. Additionally, the historical nature of his arguments is very weak point of his thesis.

However, by the end of the 19th Century, liberalism was challenged ... ... middle of paper ... ...ecisions. They believe that state power should be limited and that state should only intervene when really necessary. They believe it is an individual’s right to be as successful as they chose. They support private businesses, and the wanting of an individual to better himself. To liberalists, economic freedom is more important than economic equality.

Regards to Classical Liberalism being “selfish” it’s all about the individual rather than the state. This ideology has more self-interest than the interest of the common good. Also, some arguers will say Classical Liberalism is “selfish” because the wealthy individuals that get in to high positions are obligated to the Rule of Law. Another example is individuals are not required by the state to participate in charitable causes. Since Classical Liberals are allowed to make their own decisions, they can choose if they want to donate or not.

For example in a modified market, the government regulate the flow a income a bit so that not only the rich make money. In a market economy the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as there is no regulation in terms of income distribution. The intervention by the government, in forms such as social security nets, which is present in a modified market, makes society more evenly spread rather than everyone being one of two things, that is, very rich, or very poor. In such economies as these, the government influence economic decision making much to our advantage in terms of them providing many of the resources needed to satisfy collective wants, making restrictions upon what can and can not be done, in the interests of our health, the environment, impacts upon society etc. Through this they regulate much of the possible ‘bad' economic decisions that could be made.