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

895 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essays about the social contract theory

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.
Taking on Zozick’s construction of entitlement theory begs for a definition of justice, and it’s importance in this philosophical narrative. One’s liberty, that is one’s ability to do as he pleases without the persuasion or constraint of another, is the root of self-ownership (individual rights). Self-ownership also means one’s ownership over th...

... middle of paper ...

...onstitute injustice. Nosick favors a state in which the dominant protection agency as the only form of "government" serves to protect those who chose to freely participate in the service. The individual is free to go about his life so long as he does not violate an individual or worsen the conditions of the land for others. Having the right to ownership does not mean the right to harm, but rather the right to exclude. Just as I would not steal property from another individual (without fear of the protection agency), how is it just for anyone, including the government, to take earnings from individuals in the form of distribution or taxation? If just acquisition arises from the just history (any form you see fit), than wealth and free spending are simply functions within society with discretion falling under the responsibility of the buyer and seller of the goods.

Show More
Related

  • Needs By Thomas Sowell Analysis

    841 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Thomas Sowell’s essay Needs, he reflects on the fact that Americans routinely interchange the word “needs” with what Sowell believes is in reality the individual’s “wants”. Sowell creates unity with his audience but loses the unity when discussing entitlements and contradicting himself. He then digresses by shifting his tone and turning his essay into a political movement.

    Read More

  • Rhetorical Analysis Of Walter Lippmann's The Indispensable Opposition

    669 Words  | 2 Pages

    Every person has unalienable rights that cannot be deprived from them. This is includes people of any race and any gender. Humans would fight to their last breath to keep these rights; for the reason that it is their right to do as such. They depict themselves as noble knights who protect everyone’s rights from the evil claws of their enemies. However, are we really fighting for others’ needs? Will we actually protect the rights of others to death even if we disagree? We take a self-righteous stance to convince that we are “magnanimous, noble, and unselfish,” when in fact we are only acting so that the views and thoughts of others can better ourselves. In Walter Lippmann’s article, The Indispensable Opposition, he states this clear and coherent argument and uses various rhetorical techniques to strengthen his claim, including: tone, diction, syntax, and literary devices. All these strategies come together to for this logos based essay that is

    Read More

  • Autonomy, Responsibility and the American Revolution

    2760 Words  | 6 Pages

    Can certain people assume absolute rights over others? Do people deserve a voice in determining what goes on in their lives as well as their country? Are people liable for their own actions? The questions asked above all fall under one theme that will be discussed: autonomy and responsibility. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word ‘autonomy’ as self-government or the right to self-government; self-determination; independence.

    Read More

  • Economic Theories of the 19th and Beginning of the 20th Century

    1996 Words  | 4 Pages

    This is the idea that individuals can own their own assets. The state should not own any means of production. Everything that can be privately owned should be.

    Read More

  • hARRISON BERGERON

    787 Words  | 2 Pages

    The theme statement of Harrison Bergeron is that egalitarianism is inefficient, and will eventually be resisted by society. Competition is what drives society forward, and if everyone is equal, we are not developing as one. Many of the people in the story are unable to complete their basic tasks or jobs. “It wasn’t clear what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment.” this is unreasonable as it is the announcer’s job to broadcast the news, and when he is unable to do so, he has lost his purpose (61). Equality is everyone receiving the same, while justice is everyone receiving what they require. “She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous.” This is an example of the corrupti...

    Read More

  • Rawls Theory Of Justice

    3346 Words  | 7 Pages

    INTRODUCTION John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice, deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while removing the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations, but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual, while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice. I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his principle of difference and not an attempt at a neutral analysis.

    Read More

  • Distributive Justice in a Defense of Pluralism and Equality by Michael Walzer

    680 Words  | 2 Pages

    Distributive justice requires the philosophical powers of reflection of the greatest theorists. In order to solve certain social issues, the most pragmatic solution must be concocted carefully to solve the biggest loopholes. Michael Walzer is no stranger to the complexity of social inequality. In his book A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, he argues that every society decides on the value of a social good and therefore should distribute those good according to the meanings they have. The social goods (healthcare, office, membership, money, politics, education) are divided into spheres each having their own distributive arguments. Walzer’s acceptance of the pluralistic nature of human group and ideology leads to his argument of a complex equality, one that contrasts the ideas of equality explicit in Rawlsian Liberalism.

    Read More

  • What Have Theorists Meant by Liberty?

    1602 Words  | 4 Pages

    Liberty is a value that each person in a democratic society takes for granted. Taking this value from us, would remove the opportunity for individuals to make their own choices in life. Liberty is not a value that is constant throughout the various societies in the world, citizens of developed Western countries could be described has having considerably more liberty when compared with many of the less developed Arab nations. Theorists have studied the concept of liberty for centuries and there have been a number of different definitions, from people like Machiavelli to more modern theorists like Mill. It is the fundamental value that allows people to make decisions for themselves in civilised society. Without liberty, people would live in a situation where every last detail of their lives is dictated to them by government or society. We would be devoid of having the right to make choices and decisions for ourselves. Freedom is a fundamental value in all societies, so great that the framers of the `Declaration of Independence' decided to enshrine this value in the document. So what exactly is liberty? And why is it such an important value in our society? Throughout this essay I will look at what exactly the concept of liberty meant to a number of important theorists.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Angela Whitiker's Life Story

    1235 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Convincing the non-elite that inequality is morally right. Those most advantaged are justified in giving orders and receiving a greater proportion of valued goods and services, or at least, creating doubts about alternatives. All, individuals strive for cognitive consistency and will develop principles of fairness, such as Distributive Justice. Lastly, there is some evidence for distribution based on need as a result of ability to understand the needs of others. This is called the process of legitimation […]” (2011:461).

    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

  • 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

  • John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Stuart Mill discusses the concept of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus on his ideas of the harm principle and touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom of action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts on the concept of liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts of the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained.

    Read More

  • "Justice and Fairness"

    766 Words  | 2 Pages

    In his theory of justice, Rawls aims to introduce a notion of justice that draws on both Kantianism and Utilitarianism, in that state institutions must universally apply to the notion that they are to respect individual humanity while being consistently conscious of the consequences that their ac...

    Read More

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

Open Document