Distributive Justice, By Robert Nozick

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).

The preliminary point into an inquiry of distributive justice is to disconnect the conjunction of “distributive,” and “justice”. For the purpose of this essay, I will inherit and accept John Rawls explanation of justice from A Theory of Justice. “Justice,” according to Rawls, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” Therefore, from a societal perspective, justice as the first virtue negates the utilitarian maxim that a loss of freedom for one would be acceptable if there was a greater good to be shared by others. In a truly just society, all people are treated fair. The questions of individual liberties are taken as settled. In the just society, liberty, rights, and fairness are not subject to a utilitarian calculation nor are they susceptible to political bargaining.

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.

The retributive justice worldview concentrates on punishment of the offender. Retribution glances back at the offense and looks for proper and proportionate correctional response. Crime prevention through rehabilitative mediation is not one of the objectives of the punishment for criminal behavior. Similarly, restoration of the victim and the community is additionally not at the front line of retributive justice. Retributive justice is offender centered and is likewise government dominated. The process itself could be said to be as essential as the punishment allotted to the offender. In any occasion, the requirements of the state and the subsequent punishment to the offender are the most imperative parts of the official state reaction to criminal conduct. This center comes to the detriment of victims and the

To illustrate the meaning behind “liberty upsets patterns,” I will closely examine the Chamberlain’s example. This example demonstrates that free exchange, which rises from the idea of self-ownership, will upset the patterned distribution. Basically, if people have the right to dispose their legitimately earned wealth as they see fit.

As part of his “Entitlement Theory of Justice”, Robert Nozick argues that patterned principles of distributive justice are ultimately unjust as they interfere with individuals’ natural rights. A principle of distributive justice is “patterned” if it “specifies that a distribution is to vary along with some natural dimension, weighted sum of natural dimensions, or lexicographic ordering of natural dimensions,” he explains. So, a principle that distributed goods in society to individuals according to need, usefulness to society, intelligence, or some combination thereof is pattered according to Nozick’s definition. In Nozick’s libertarian view, “the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be [morally] justified” without

Robert Nozick declares a transfer of holdings just if the exchange is voluntary and if the holding being exchanged was originally acquired by just means.2 The first key point of this argument that should be rejected is the fact that the grounds for a ‘just’ transfer of holdings relies

23) clearly specified that a man can possess more lands without injuring another due to partage of things. Thus, when a person possessed gold and silver, he is able to acquire more privately. This contention manifests how man's property is correlated to the labor a person puts into it. Because of this, Locke (2002, p. 23) argued that the government should regulate how people acquire property. In a way, people who lived centuries ago were unconscious of their “tacit and voluntary consent” in the “disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth” (Locke, 2002, p. 23).

In a opposition to Rawls, Nozick disputes the idea of defining justice as a pattern of holdings. Nozick argues that a theory of justice must be 1) a patterned/unpatterned theory of justice or 2) operate on historical grounds. With this, Nozick presents his entitlement theory which entails a just distribution of wealth that does not require any pattern, rather how it was acquired (historically) and the end-result of the

The entitlement theory of justice tells us that whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just. Norzick’s two beliefs are absolute property ownership rights. His other belief is redistribution rights.

In his work, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues in favour of the minimal state, citing its superiority over all the other forms government may take. In determining whether Nozick is correct in his assertion, the conception of the minimal state must be evaluated against the competing forms of government that Nozick claims to be inherently flawed. The evaluation of any proposed form of government is essential as the form it takes influences the distribution of power within a society which can impact the possibility of survival for some individuals. The flaws of Nozick’s minimal state, a proponent of natural rights and limited government, can be seen when viewed in conjunction to proposals put forth by both individualist anarchists

There are three main concept in the theory of entitlement. The first is the principle of acquisition which state that people are entitled to holdings they acquired rightfully. John Locke (1632 – 1704) is the philosopher Nozick bases the idea how originally humans reached the situation of private property. Which is, humans are allowed to use nature and mix their labor with it as long as they leave enough and as good to others (Nozick, 1974, p.174-177). After we established the first principle we reach the second one, the principle of transfer. That is, humans are entitled to holdings they gain through a transfer, under the condition that both parties were rightfully entitled to the holdings of the deal. The third principle, somewhat derived from the previous two, stated that no one is entitled to holdings he acquired not in accordance with the first and second principles. In these cases where historically people own holdings that they are not rightfully entitled to a rectification need to be considered (Nozick, 1974,

In this analysis we analyze chapters one, two and three from the text What Is Community Justice by David R. Karp and Todd R. Clear. We will then break down a specific case from a chapter in this text. The first chapter is about a placed called Ventura County and in this chapter it also discusses the theory of community justice as a whole as well as the community justice model. Chapter two is a bit broader and discusses neighborhood probation offices, the philosophy behind them and their current purpose and expansion. The third chapter which is also the chapter where the analysis takes place is about one specific case and an encounter. It starts off by pointing out a fairly small issue and attempting to address the issue but when examined more closely they discover major issues here and are now faced with a much larger problem than originally thought. The people of Vermont needed to build a new prison without taking away the funding for their school system or release violent and serious criminals back onto the streets but did not know which was the lessor of the two evils and needed help and needed it quick.