Robert Nozick's Analysis

The ownership of property is a heavily debated issue in politics. Some philosophers believe that an individual can choose to do what he or she wants with their own property, while others believe that the government should have the power to interfere. Robert Nozick believes that the just thing to do is to follow what he calls distributive justice. Nozick’s distributive justice puts forth guidelines on how to acquire “holdings” in a just way. However, Louis Althusser believes that individuals are not given a choice because ideological state apparatuses and repressive state apparatuses are leaving individuals with little choices or no choices to choose from. Althusser and materialists would argue that redistribution of goods is a just society …show more content…
As a libertarian Nozick says, “from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen” (Nozick 66). Nozick believes that people get what they deserve, people who work harder than others will own more than people who do not work as hard. If an individual really wants to own said property then he or she will earn it. Nozick advocates an ideology in which the government would play a minimal role. Nozick says, “the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified. Any state more extensive violates people’s rights” (Nozick 60). This belief is the backbone for the argument that people should have the rights to choose what an individual can do with his or her own property. Nozick is only against government intervention when it is unnecessary, but if acquisition of property is through illegitimate means, then the government has the right to step in and pass judgment on the …show more content…
These guidelines fall under what Nozick refers to as the entitlement theory. In the entitlement theory Nozick states, “the subject of justice in holdings consists of three major topics. The first is the original acquisition of holdings … the second topic concerns the transfer of holdings from one person to another … the third major topic [is] the rectification of injustice in holdings” (Nozick 60-61). Nozick believes that in order to stop government interference that people must comply with the guidelines on how to legitimately acquire holdings. Nozick believe that these three concepts are the only way that holdings are acquired through legal means. Since these holdings were acquired through legal means, the government should not have the right to decide what an individual choose to do with the holding. Nozick states that there is justice in holdings if; an individual acquires it through his principle of justice because he or she is entitled to it, acquires it through the principle of justice by a transfer from the original owner, and that no one is entitled to a holding unless acquision is through repetition of the first two methods (Nozick 61). This means that an individual will need to earn or trade holdings in order to become the owner of said holding. Once a transfer of holding is completed, the new owner can do as he or she pleases with the

Show More

John Rawls Ideas In Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron

Business Ethics Essay example

Robert Nozick's Analysis

Related Documents: Robert Nozick's Analysis

John Rawls Ideas In Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron

Business Ethics Essay example