Similarities Between Nozick And John Rawls

According to Nozick, “Taxation of earnings from labor is on par with forced labor.” (Anarchy, State, Utopia, 169). Philosophers Robert Nozick and John Rawls take opposing stances on this matter. They illustrate their opinions and reasonings in their theories in order to advocate for their respective arguments. This paper will look to clarify and evaluate Nozick’s argument as well as Rawls’ response to Nozick’s claim that taxation is on par with forced labor. The goal of this paper is, therefore, to discuss both Rawls and Nozick’s theories in order to argue against Nozick’s reasoning and argument.
According to Nozick, “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)(Nozick, xix).” Nozick conceptualises these rights as “self­ownership.” Self ownership is defined as the ownership of an individual’s physical body, talents and labor (Nozick, 169­71). Nozick creates a Lockean argument by stating that if we

produce goods through mixing our labor and talents with resources and goods, it becomes our own property (Nozick, 169­71).
Nozick sees taxation as the taking of our labor and talents by force. If the government taxes our income, it is taking away our time, talents, and goods produced by our labor. According to Nozick, taxation means that the government takes away our self­ownership, a clear violation of our natural rights. “Seizing the results of someone’s labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. If people force you to do certain work or unrewarded work, for a certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what purposes your work is to serve apart from your decisions. This process whereby they take this decision from you makes them a part­owner of you; it gives them a property right in you (Nozick 172).”
In Nozick’s theory, the subject of justice in holdings consists of three major topics: the principle of acquisition, the transfer of holdings from one person to another and what must be done to rectify injustices arising from violations of 1 and 2 (Nozick 150). A distribution is, therefore, just if it has arisen in accordance with these three sets of rules (Nozick 151). Nozick is not concerned with the end state as he believes that the “end­state and most patterned principles of distributive justice institute (partial ownership by others of people and their actions and labor (Nozick 172).” As a result, Nozick’s entitlement theory states that one cannot decide whether redistribution is necessary merely by looking at the prevailing pattern of distribution. For Nozick, the unequal distribution of wealth is just if the distribution of how it came about is in accordance with the rules of acquisition, transfer and rectification. With this said, Nozick believes that as long as people’s rights are respected and the rules of acquisition, transfer and rectification are being upheld, whatever distribution that comes about as a consequence, no matter how unequal, is just.
Nozick defends the value of liberty as such while Rawls seeks to reconcile liberty and equality through two principles: 1.

Everyone should possess equal basic rights and liberties 2. “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all (Rawls 53).” He uses a social contract to develop his ethical theory of 'justice as fairness.' Rawls argues that in order to work out the basic principles of a society, each of us should be placed under a veil of ignorance (Rawls 11). The veil of ignorance places individuals at a zero point position where they know nothing about their own social class, current wealth, psychological propensity, talents or conception of the good (Rawls 11). From this ignorance, we are able to produce the basic principles about how our society should be run since everyone would concerned for everyone equally as they do not know who is advantaged and who is not (Rawls

11).
Rawls disagrees with Nozick and believes that taxation isn’t stealing. Rawls suggests that those natural qualities you possess, you do not deserve. Rawls acknowledges the fact that we, as humans, possess natural talents. However, even though it is true that one owns his or her talents, it does not give an individual full entitlement to the benefits. Why is this the case? Why don’t individuals deserve a sense of entitlement to the benefits that their talents have created? Rawls would say it is simply because that individual doesn’t deserve to live in the society that he/she does. Therefore, taxation is not stealing in Rawls’ opinion because you are not entitled to your wealth.
When comparing Rawls’ theory to Nozick’s, the arguments between the two are distinctly different. With that said, I believe that Rawls provides a more persuasive argument to address the claims of social and economic injustices. In my opinion, Nozick’s argument admits for an unlimited amount of inequality and allows for the potential for humans to live in a society where actions are purely self interested. Nozick doesn’t take into account the fact that we, as humans, have a moral obligation and duty to help each other. This moral obligation is what maintains the order of society and I don’t believe it is fair of Nozick to ignore this assertion.
My fear is that a painfully selfish society where individuals are encouraged to consume rather than to care is bound to develop as a result of the application of Nozick’s theory. As Rawls would say, if the wealth isn’t redistributed in a way that would benefit everyone, vast economic differences between rich and poor will continue to occur, spreading the gap further and further apart. Nozick affirms and secures liberty to the rich, but seems to deny it to the poor. In looking at Wilt Chamberlain case from a Rawlsian perspective, one can clearly see how Nozick’s theory fails to account unjust situations. If Wilt Chamberlain was abundantly wealthy and the rest of the community was starving of hunger, wouldn’t the wealth would be much better used to help the overall community? Since we are human, we have reason to think that Wilt Chamberlain would have a duty to help the poor and by keeping his wealth to himself, he is failing to fulfill his moral obligation. However if we tax him and take a little of his wealth to distribute it to the poor, the inequalities will decrease and the overall benefits of the community will increase.
Nozick preaches that inequalities are justified just as long as they don’t deny or take away any rights or liberties. However, in my opinion, I believe that the ability for vast economic differences to continually increase would soon lead to a denial of liberty and rights of certain individuals. For example, the poor would be unable to pay for the same schooling, housing, and opportunities as the rich which would deny them of an equal education and a better right to life. The spreading economic gap creates for further inequalities since the rich have the opportunity to obtain more than the poor simply because of their economic/social position. Nozick places the concept of liberty on a pedestal in his teachings and theories. However, I believe that his version of “liberty” provides individuals with a restriction of freedom since not all opportunities are open to all.
In my opinion, taxation is a way to increase the equality and well­being in a society for everyone. Taxation is often used to pay for public goods that all are able to enjoy, such as public buildings, roads and transportation. Rawls teaches that economic inequalities should only be permitted if they are to the benefit of society, and especially if they are to the benefit of its least advantaged members. Since taxation is providing good to the benefit of the community and is redistributing wealth to the least advantaged members, the inequalities present are, therefore, considered just.