Reciprocity and Justice: Exploring Rawls' Difference Principle

Leading to his discussion based on reciprocity, which Rawls argues is contained in his difference principle of justice. The concept of reciprocity can be closely related to rationality, claiming that gains are not made at the expense of others, which orders the maximization of liberty and minimizes inequalities. The view of fairness of ones self and others as equal moral beings. He explained that someone was incapable of gaining from the labor of another person, without doing his or her own fair share of labor. Thus, if everyone did their part in society, it allowed people to benefit from the division of labor. Reciprocity involves one to sacrifice themselves as well as remaining kind and generous within society. Rawls explained that if the

His conception of justice was entirely different because he did not believe arranging ones wealth amongst society, instead he believed that people created their own wealth and could do as they pleased with it as long as their properties or material goods were earned fairly which determined a just society. Justice for Nozick is more of the historical issues on how each transaction took place.
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