Social Justice and Entitlements Interfer with Natural Rights Essay

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:

-Individuals should have the sense of fairness in, "what is distributed" or "what is right."

               I am ashamed of the human race because we are entitled, lazy, and overweight. Humanity now believes they deserve special treatments or privileges without doing anything to deserve them. These feelings likely come from parents not expecting kids to get a job and buy them everything they want. entitlement may also stem from their parents taking care of everything and not making the children move out or take responsibility for their own actions. Technology also gives a huge sense of entitlement because people are always posting on social media making it a race to see who has the better car or the better clothes and when you have something better to someone else it makes you feel like you are better then them and should

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

The framework of the anti-entitlement theory contends that life is one of humility and dependence and that we all share a connectedness through our choices in life. The anti-entitlement theory posits the idea that individuals must take ownership for their choices with the understanding of real consequences in addition to the idea that nobody is owed anything. Additionally, the theoretical framework conceded that we must come to the realization that there are positive and negative events in this world and that we need to accept the negative connotations presented to us through and ideal and realistic understanding about true

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

In present day, it is common for to practice policies promoting justice through the distribution of property from its citizens. When compromising this to a minimal state, these policies would be unable to be implemented and therefore Nozick is faced with the possibility of creating a minimal state that ignores or accepts the distributive justice and not the notion that minimal states are accountable (Nozick, 216). Thus, Nozick provides a third alternative to which justice can be given under minimal state involvement. This is known as the “Entitlement

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia Robert Nozick uses a famous example of Wilt Chamberlain getting rich by playing basketball to show how patterned distribution is destroyed by individual transfers of goods and money. He argues that we should have a free economy in which we each have control over our holdings without interference from a government or anyone else. To argue this he shows that the alternative to this free economy, patterning our distribution of resources, is unjust because it causes interference in people’s lives.

Hence, each person should take responsibility for her choices and assume the costs of these choices. As such, luck egalitarians seem to argue that distributive justice should be essentially choice-sensitive yet luck-insensitive. How well off people are should be wholly determined by the responsible choices people makes and not to differences in the circumstances they are not responsible for. (Tan, 2008, 665) What follows from this account of equality, endorsed by luck egalitarians, people should be compensated for undeserved misfortunes, and this compensation should come from that part of others’ good fortune that is undeserved. In other words, distributive justice indicates that the “lucky” should transfer some or all of their gains due to luck to the “unlucky”. This is grounded on the assumption that no one deserves their genetic endowments, such as native abilities and intelligence, or other involuntary circumstances, such as social factors like class and wealth of the family into which one is born. (Anderson, 1999; Tan,

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.

These documents show us that the idea of “rights” can be expressed in many manners, specifically to these three documents, “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” of 1789, from the French people as a National Assembly. Although number four on the list of the document being read, it is my belief that this point explains what the French are wanting. “Liberty consists in the ability to do whatever does not harm another; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no other limits than those which assure to other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by the law.” (Strayer) “The Jamaica

Over the years in our country’s history it has been apparent that the idea of same sex marriages is becoming much more popular, however in most states there is still one thing stopping them. That one thing stopping two people from the pursuit of happiness which they desire is a social injustice. Social injustices are situations where a person or group of people is treated unfairly due to certain factors for example discrimination, prejudice, racism, heterosexism, sexism, and so forth. In the case of same sex marriages, the factor playing a major role in this social injustice is where most people believe that opposite sexes attract, but in the case of a same sex couple wanting to be married, this brings about many topics to be discussed by

There are many different approaches to the justice of distributions in societies and there are arguments that can be made to support each of them. Three types of approaches are distribution justice based on a distributive approach that was introduced by John Rawls, emergent which was advocated by Robert Nozick and a market democratic hybrid supported by Tomasi. This paper will illustrate the basic premise of each of these approaches and the impacts that they have on the economics of a society. After briefly explaining these three approaches to just distribution I will demonstrate why Tomasi 's "Free Market Fairness", or the democratic hybrid approach, is the most logical and productive way to achieve justice of distributions while having a

The allocation process focuses on contribution, ability and need, each may be applicable in situations, also, created a negative effect as well. For example, “in determining shares of a bonus pool, contribution to the success of the business would make sense as an allocation rule.” Example for ability, “when deciding who should get the opportunity to lead a prestigious project, ability would seem to be an important allocation criterion.” Finally, the example of need, “In allocating a limited budget among departments or projects, need seems like it would be an appropriate basis for allocation.” (Velasquez, 2005, Pg. 11-12) Each allocation serves its purpose appropriately, just not equally. Even though the book stated, “those who contributed more, or who had greater ability or need, would receive priority.” (Velasquez, 2005, Pg. 12) In my opinion, it is both fair and unfair. Why? Gaining first preference can be viewed as impartial; especially, when the wealthier person abuse their financial status by investing more, with the hope of a greater return (privileges), which is something politicians and wealthy businessmen practice. Such, is a case of imbalance of wealth and power, making it unfair for those of lesser wealth. Had participants of the allocation process been honest, if