Nozick's View On Liberty

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.

Rawls strive to determine how we can make a society as just as possible. Rawls derives two principles; liberty principle and the difference principle. He also gives a theoretical device that he calls “the original position” and “the veil of ignorance” this device is meant to help us in the way that we picture our self behind a veil. We do not know the basic things about ourselves like our sex, age, financial status etc. This device is to help us be totally neutral in the sense that we do not know our status in society. After putting our self in a status quo if you will, we can now decide on what us just for the whole society. Rawls derives then the difference principle. To put this is Rawls own words, the difference principle is: “Then the difference principle is a strongly egalitarian conception in the sense that unless there is a distribution that makes both persons better off an equal distribution is to be preferred

In Distributive Justice, Robert Nozick aims to clarify the processes of distribution that can be reasonably upheld in a free society. To do so, he examines the origins of how people legitimately come to own things and applies the least intrusive set of guidelines that can be doled out in order to guarantee the most justice possible, while also respecting individual liberty. Nozick provides the Entitlement Theory, which specifies that so long as there is justice in the acquisition and transfer of holdings (things one owns), there is no injustice or infringement upon liberties of others and the parties involved are entitled their holdings. In the event there is an injustice committed, he provides the third topic of “ the rectification of injustice in holdings.” Establishing how individuals may legitimately acquire holdings is crucial to a discussion on the liberty and rights of individuals in a free, yet cooperative society. In order to further clarify how individuals originally come to own things in society, Distributive Justice later analyzes John Locke’s Theory of Acquisition. A diminishing number of unowned resources as well as the inherent problems in a free market convolute the issue.

In his ideal society, “an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice.” Rawls wished to create a system of “justice as fairness” that would be based in equality and justice. This system of “justice as fairness” he claimed began with choosing a “conception of justice that is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions.” This “conception of justice” is then, ideally, used as the basis on which an institution would build its constitution, legislature, and so forth.

John Rawls just society was considered wrong to most. He says that if I can be pretty sure that I won't get caught and punished that it is rational for me to break the contract. He was a very selfish person and only cared about what was in the best interest for him. He states that we are rationally self-interested, argued that we need a society and social contract that applies to everyone and anyone. He also stated that for all of this "just society" to happen we need everything to end and just wipe the slate clean for a "new" beginning. For this beginning, Rawls wanted to enforce the two principles of justice. 1. Equality Principle; this principle states that everyone has maximum liberty consistent with the same liberty of all others. 2. Difference Principle; all inequalities are allowed if two conditions are met: positions of inequality are open to everyone, and the inequality benefits everyone.

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:

John Rawls was the second most important political thinker of his time. His main contribution to the idea of a civil society is his theory of justice. Rawls believed in “social primary goods” which included rights,

IV. If Nozick is right, then discuss whether such "upsetting" of patterns provides a sound reason for rejecting patterns, or for regulating liberty.

Rawls believes that in a situation where a society is established of people who are self-interested, rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually acceptable and agreed upon by all the people. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to

The difference in this property idea forms, as Rawls states that social and economic differences must meet two requirements to be just. Positions that bring grater benefit and advantage should be open to all, the opportunity or chance of getting a certain job, house or car should be equal to all people. This is where his theory contradicts Nozick. According to Nozick all people entitled to their property as long as the have not violated any Lockean rights and that people can do anything they want with their property or advantages as long as its justified. Rawls argues that this will only favor rich people, as the opportunities for them to gain more properties or advantages are much higher than for those with no property. Property and wealth gives people power, which maximizes the gap between the rich and the poor.

No one is entitled to what is not rightfully his. John Rawls’ notion laid out in his Veil of Ignorance as a way of setting up an equal societal playing field for every citizen fails in that it arbitrarily sets an assumption of each person’s view of entitlement from the government. His Liberty Principle is less controversial than his Difference Principle, in that it, initially, stands for equal liberties to all, but fails in execution as it expounds into creating liberties at the expense of others instead of protecting natural liberties. Nozick rejects Rawls’ form of distributive justice in that Rawls’ Difference Principle is unreasonable and unfair as it holds only the producing citizens accountable for sustaining non-producers by way of theft. To these points, I vehemently support Robert Nozick’s view on justice, equality and liberty. I earn what is mine and deserve nothing that is

Rawls assumes that these hypothetical people would be conservative risk takers and in a situation of uncertainty would opt for the least disadvantageous outcome in any choice presented to them and they would choose those principles that would maximize the position of the worst off, for just in case they should be the worst off. The two principles of justice that such people choose are:- 1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty to others. 2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantages b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity.

There are two sides of the Liberal Theory of Justice which are represented by John Locke and John Rawls – Locke being on the liberal side while Rawls is more on the equalitarian side. Each agrees that man is an individual with rights given to him because of his mere existence. Even though Rawls, who came later, does build on Locke and their views are quite similar, they still have some disagreements on what these rights mean and how they should be handled.

The debate between Rawls and Nozick is one that can still be seen today. The solution to the problem depends on whether a person is a libertarian or a liberal. Though Rawls makes a compelling argument, Nozick’s words cannot be ignored. Rawls argument claims that justice should be fair and this fairness is achieved by strong government restraints. Rawls believes that justice should be able to be achieved by all, not only the privileged. Nozick claims that justice comes from a minimal state, one where people can achieve justice through their natural rights. Justice is redistributive; it is not solely in the hands of one person. There is a clear debate and the obvious choice is Nozick solely based on the fact that Rawls’ theory is an impractical one. In order for Rawls theory to be put into effect there needs to be no self-interest. This is not the case with human nature; society is naturally inclined to protect the self.

Thus, we return to the first order intellectual tool: principles of justice. There are many possible principles of justice; however Rawls tests the following two principles of justice in hopes which are theoretically capable of achieving institutional reform. The first principle of justice is that “each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties” (5). Moreover, this is the translating of rights into real possibilities to guarantee that one really does have freedom. And this is a fair and concrete value which society does, in theory, guarantees. The second principle of justice is that “social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society,” (6). Thus, there is no exclusion of any group.