Nozick's Notion Of Historical Entitlement

1728 Words7 Pages
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. Nozick believes that a state should not prohibit consensual transfers between fit individuals due in part to the sacrifice of liberty that it entails. Nozick puts forth a theory of entitlement that does not include such a sacrifice. It consists of two main components: the principle of justice in acquisition and the principle of justice in transfer. The two principles together bring about a state of justice in holdings. Justice in transfer is concerned with answering the question of how a person may rightfully transfer a holding to another individual as well as

More about Nozick's Notion Of Historical Entitlement

Open Document