Nozick's Argument Analysis
His argument is founded on the idea that every human being is a rational agent who is self-aware, has free will and cannot be treated as a mere thing. He also describes a human being as self-owners. Self-ownership is the claim that individuals own themselves, their bodies, ability, talents and any products of their labor. They have all the authority over themselves. Because individuals are self-owners, they have certain rights to their lives, liberty as well as the products of their labor. Owning something is having the right to possess it and dispose of it and thus to own oneself is to have the rights over various elements that make up one’s life. These rights function as limitations on the actions of others by setting limits on how others
…show more content…
There are also those who argue that the mini al state is too small and dos not facilitate the redistribution of resources and as such cannot address inequalities between citizens. The too small argument follows that if some people have more wealth than others do, those who lack resources will have an unjust limit of living good lives. Nozick’s reply is that this kind of distributive justice is unjust. The resources are not initially distributes and are acquired or created by individuals who can exchange them. Therefore, any distribution by the state would be redistribution, which would violate the rights of the individuals. To replace this account of distributive justice, Nozick provides the entitlement theory where he argues that for any possession of property to be just it must have been acquired through a just means. This argument advances the position held by Locke that individuals are entitled to claim property rights in free resources when they mix the resources with their labor. The transfer of the property must also be just and voluntary. If the current property holder created the property or received the property through a just transfer then they are entitled to the property. If all the individuals in a society are entitled to the property they hold then the distribution of property is just and any forcible redistribution would be unjust. Justice does not demand redistribution but demands respecting the distribution that exists when the conditions of the entitlement theory
There are also those who argue that the mini al state is too small and dos not facilitate the redistribution of resources and as such cannot address inequalities between citizens. The too small argument follows that if some people have more wealth than others do, those who lack resources will have an unjust limit of living good lives. Nozick’s reply is that this kind of distributive justice is unjust. The resources are not initially distributes and are acquired or created by individuals who can exchange them. Therefore, any distribution by the state would be redistribution, which would violate the rights of the individuals. To replace this account of distributive justice, Nozick provides the entitlement theory where he argues that for any possession of property to be just it must have been acquired through a just means. This argument advances the position held by Locke that individuals are entitled to claim property rights in free resources when they mix the resources with their labor. The transfer of the property must also be just and voluntary. If the current property holder created the property or received the property through a just transfer then they are entitled to the property. If all the individuals in a society are entitled to the property they hold then the distribution of property is just and any forcible redistribution would be unjust. Justice does not demand redistribution but demands respecting the distribution that exists when the conditions of the entitlement theory