Analysis Of Nozick's Anarchy, Utopia, And The State

The collectivist society in which Equality 7-2521 lives is similar to the Nazi and Communist states of the twentieth century. It is controlled like the society in “The Giver.” The rulers of this society do not permit any individual to think freely. They must think they are nothing. “We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the state. Amen.”(21).

Simply put Nozick theorized that you are entitled to your holdings, meaning money, property, goods as long as you acquired them justly (without violating anyone elses rights).

Once a society elects the government they classify as “ideal,” the government that establishes authority will have the ability to set harsh restrictions against the citizens who supported them without any knowledge on their plans. To demonstrate how sinful he has been, Equality describes the kind of life people conform

Ultimately, Nozick seeks to answer what right governments have to redistribute things that individuals have obtained justly via the three topics aforementioned. This paper will examine Nozick’s conclusion that the minimal state is the most substantial one that can be justified

Beyond Anthem’s Society's Rules, Controls, and Boundaries In the critically acclaimed novel, Anthem, written by Ayn Rand, the main character, Equality 7-2521, faces countless difficulties throughout the course of the book. In this dystopian society created by Ayn Rand, there are numerous rules, controls, and boundaries that are set by leaders of Equality’s community to keep the peace in the city. These alleged “rules” are Equality’s main conflict in the novel, due to his vast curiosity. Each of these rules have a reason for existence and have a purpose in Equality's society.

Nozick’s entitlement theory is a theory of justice and how society regulates the distribution of goods, money and property. “All that matters for Noziak is how people came to have what they have, not the pattern or results of the distribution of goods.” (Shaw and Barry, pg.115) His entitlement theory comprises of three main principles which were:

In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke creates an argument that details how individuals attain private property and how some can end up with more property than others. He attempts to justify the resulting economic inequality, but is unsuccessful, failing to address many of the problematic issues that arise from his claim.

Nozick asserts that the state should not be able to prohibit capitalist transfers between consenting adults. In this paper I will argue that this claim is true in all circumstances regardless of the resulting inequality. I will begin my analysis by explaining why it is that Nozick makes this claim. This explanation will focus on articulating his detailed description of just acquisition and transfer of holdings. I will then move on to describe how Nozick’s conclusion regarding just transfers results in him forbidding state intervention restricting capitalist acts. The focus here will be on detailing how Nozick’s notion of historical entitlement combats the competing theories of justice in holdings, namely theories composed of end-state principles and patterned principles. Finally, I will address common concerns and anticipate rebuttals to Nozick’s claim and show how they are unsuccessful in their attempts.

1. There exists a patterned distribution D1, which is a favorite patter of non-entitlement conception of justice

But would it not be the case that his minimal state viewed from a historical aspect be unjust too as it taxes its members to finance state apparatus to provide protective services to non-members? Therefore, Nozick’s state is unjust as it is nonsensical to assert that taxation to finance protective schemes is just whereas to finance redistributive schemes aimed at providing sustenance for those in extreme poverty is

Nozick’s principles of justice in holdings can be described as only objects that were acquired justly are just. So, for an object that is justly acquired means the object was created or taken justly from natural resources. Just because you bought an object does not mean it was acquired justly. If the person or company you bought the object from acquired the object through robbery, theft, or fraud, then the object has not been justly acquired. Fraud is not considered a just transaction because you are being given false information. If something was stolen then passed down for generations to generation, Nozick would consider this object to be unjustly owned in this family. For a transaction to be voluntary, no force, coercion, threat of force,

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding. 3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2. The complete principle of distributive justice would say simply that a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution. A distribution is just if it arises from another just distribution by legitimate means. The legitimate means of moving from one distribution to another are specified by the principle of justice in transfer. The legitimate first "moves" are specified by the principle of justice in acquisition. Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just. The means of change specified by the principle of justice in transfer preserve justice. As correct rules of inference are truth-preserving, and any conclusion deduced via repeated application of such rules from only true premisses is itself true, so the means of transition from one situation to another specified by the principle of justice in transfer are justice-preserving, and any situation actually arising from repeated transitions in accordance with the principle from a just situation is itself just. The parallel between justice-preserving transformations and truth-preserving transformations illuminates where it fails as well

Spicer (2008) links distributive justice and resource allocation by proposing four possible approaches to establish divergent criteria, they are: democratic means, age based, personal responsibility based, and cost utility.

Inequality and inefficiency are universal issues plaguing society that countless economists have attempted to understand and address. Distinguished economists such as John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman have developed their own theories of to achieve distributive justice, or a fair allocation of resources for all members of society. In Rawls’ justice as fairness and Sen’s capability theory, the economists come closest to achieving plans of distributive justice that retain the output-promoting effects of compensating differentials and recognizing the costs of Okun’s leaky bucket, but a plan that retains Rawls’ social contract and Sen’s capability focus would come closest to achieving justice.