Robert Nozick's Theory Of Distributive Justice

1166 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Libertarianism essays

Nozick on Distributive Justice “The minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified”(1064). Robert Nozick is a seminal philosopher for libertarianism. Libertarianism is the emphasis of personal and individual liberty as it’s paramount principle for guiding a just society. Nozick beings his arguments with posing an idea for a minimal state. The minimal state has a few key features. It has a monopoly on the use of force, and this force is used to guard citizens, and there is no other legitimate state functions. Essentially, the governments function is to defend it’s citizens with force and that is it. Because anything beyond that is a reduction in the liberties of the citizens. The more power the government maintains, the less …show more content…

People will freely distribute goods or holdings amongst each other, this is a utopian ideal of a free society. Redistribution assumes that the first distribution is unjust and a redistribution somehow fixes this unjust situation. Nozick is opposed to the utilitarian ideal that redistribution to benefit the greatest amount of people is the end goal. Nozick calls his theory of distributive justice the “Entitlement Theory.” The way things are distributed today and how people are entitled to those things is the basic foundation of this theory. There are three major principles Nozick covers. The first being the original acquisition of holdings (in what way is acquisition just?). The second is the transfer of holdings. It seems that Nozick would say that the only way in which the transfer of holdings would be just is if it is a free choice transaction among people who choose to partake in it. The last topic is the rectification of the injustice of holdings. If someone received holdings unjustly, how is this …show more content…

And I think he expresses the protections of private property through his principle’s far greater than Locke had. I think it’s a strong idea to say that if someone gave someone else property (freely of course) that no one can take that property away. This is a very strong fight for the individual right to property. It rejects government seizure of property and all forms of civil forfeiture, and also establishes that no other person can take this property (thieves). I like considering this hypothetical discussion of the transference of property when analyzing Nozick’s points. If we all start with the same amount of money, and there are thousands of us. Assume that all of us are fans of one member of the population (for whatever reason they may be popular or famous) and we all give this person a small amount of money, eventually this person will have more money than any other individual. Any possible decision to take away any of that money that everyone voluntarily gave to this member of society would immediately be a violation of rights and no distribution of income could ever be illegitimate as long as it came into being by just principles. Any form of redistribution would be a violation of rights and this gives more power and freedom to the citizens of a country with minimal state. And today, with all of the numerous taxes imposed on us by our government, we

Show More
Related

  • Robert Nozick's Libertarian Views of Justice in "Anarchy, Stat, And Utopia"

    895 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Democratic Ideals of John Locke

    737 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...s his argument by emphasizing the absolute reason on why property is solely for the use to produce goods and provide services by farming one’s land or building infrastructures; nevertheless the overuse of one’s land exhibits what Locke calls waste, whereas the consumption of goods for the use of trade can result in bartering and wealth. The introduction of wealth creates the motivation for people feel compelled to protect their wealth which leads us back to the concept of entering into a civil or political society for security. Locke believes that civil and political society can ensure the stability, security, and social structure of any given society; but he points out that if the government becomes a tyranny or corrupt only than shall the populace exercise their right to question the authority and overthrow if needed.

    Read More

  • The Crucible Theocratic Justice

    1489 Words  | 3 Pages

    Arthur Miller’s 1954 play, The Crucible, toys with the emotions and morality struggles of the 1690 Salem Witch Trails involving the repercussions of government corruption and the desire for personal liberty and integrity. Miller’s artistry as a playwright, positions the audience to believe that women are largely suppressed by men in the community which ultimately leads to an uprising of power from the “powerlessness” members of the community. The Crucible challenges preconceived audience perceptions that change can only be accomplished with power, by presenting an opportunity for the powerlessness gender of Salem to congregate and upturn the pillars of society that Salem thought were most strong such as theocratic justice.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Robert Nozick's View On The State Of Government

    1040 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • A Theory Of Justice, And John Rawls's Anarchy, State And Utopia

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Nozick's Distribution Of Wealth

    1003 Words  | 3 Pages

    In addition, Nozick is a classical liberalism, advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom. Now, that is where the problems, when it comes to agreeing with Nozick’s way when it comes to distribution of wealth because I don’t believe in an emphasis on economic freedom. While having the main focus on economic freedom can cause political issues with in the society, and what I mean by political issues is basically government problems. Many people complaining about government support, such as welfare, job assistance, social security, and etc. A society without those things diminish in so many ways, starting with population decline to reduction of property. Another thing that’s crazy is that I do not agree with is that he believes taxation for anything other than protection is unjust. Nozick states, “Not all actual situations are generated in accordance with the two principles of justice in holdings: the principle of justice in acquisition and the principles of justice in transfer.”, which means people only get distribution or benefits of wealth if its by legitimate means. These legitimate means are move by the specific principles. This is one another reason I don’t agree with Mr. Nozick because legitimate means should not determine your distribution of wealth.

    Read More

  • Rawls Theory Of Justice

    3346 Words  | 7 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Locke, Hobbes, Mill, Thoreau

    1432 Words  | 3 Pages

    For individual property to exist, there must be a means for individuals to appropriate the things around them. Locke starts out with the idea of the property of person; each person owns his or her own body, and all the labor that they perform with the body. When an individual adds their own labor, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labor. This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent of humankind in general, each person has license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative.

    Read More

  • Theory Of Property In John Locke's Second Treatise Of Government

    1562 Words  | 4 Pages

    In Locke’s state of nature, there was never a need to assume that one must equally divide possessions. Locke’s notion of of the right to property was crucial because it was held on the same accord as rights such as life and liberty respectively. By doing so, property becomes subjected to the whims of political processes just as any similar right would require. This means that Locke was able to justify inequalities in property through the need of political regulation for property. There was also a drastic imbalance in Locke’s civil society due to the two classes that unlimited accumulation of property created. Locke suggested that everyone is a member of society and yet only those who owned property could fully participate in society. Those who did not own property were unable to fully participate, because it could give them the opportunity to use their newfound legitimate power to equalize property ownership, going against Locke’s key belief of unlimited accumulation. In Locke’s views, due to the overwhelming abundance of property, there was never a need for a method to ensure impartiality. The inequality stems from Locke’s inability to realize the discrepancy would become more and more apparent as men used money to expand their possessions. This structure established two different types of class within society, the upper echelon citizens who share in the sovereign power and the second class citizens

    Read More

  • Locke State Of Nature Analysis

    1424 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this state of nature, according to Locke, men were born free and equal: free to do what they wished without being required to seek permission from any other man, and equal in the sense of there being no natural political authority of one man over another. He quickly points out, however, that "although it is a state of liberty, it is not a state of license," because it is ruled over by the law of nature which everyone is obliged to obey. While Locke is not very specific about the content of the law of nature, he is clear on a few specifics. First, that "reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it" and second, that it teaches primarily that "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life liberty or possessions." Hence, right from the beginning, Locke places the right to possessions on the same level as the right to life, health, and liberty.

    Read More

  • Locke, Rousseau, and King

    929 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...

    Read More

  • Theory Of Justice In John Rawls's Theory Of Justice

    2303 Words  | 5 Pages

    John Rawls’ Theory of Justice attempts to establish a fair and reasonable social account of social justice. To do this, he discusses two fundamental principles of justice, which if implemented into society, would guarantee a just and fair way of life. Rawls is mostly concerned with the social good (what is good and just), and his aim with the Theory of Justice is to provide a way that society could be one that is fair and just, while taking into consideration, a person’s primary goods (rights and liberties, opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect). The usage of these principles will lead to an acceptable basis of self-respect. That saying, if the two principles are fair and just, then the final primary good,

    Read More

  • John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice

    959 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society , . Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound.

    Read More

  • The Philosophies Of John Rawls Vs. Nozick

    792 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Distributive Justice By Robert Nozick And John Rawls

    1255 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Robert Nozick's Theory Of Distributive Justice

Open Document