Nozick's Entitlement Theory Essay

Wealth inequality has existed to some degree in every free society known to man. In the United States of America in particular, the current disparity between the richest and the poorest is astronomical. Many people today have argued that it is unethical for some individuals to accumulate so much wealth while others have barely enough to keep themselves alive. It is the responsibility of the state, according to these welfare economists, to maximize net happiness by distributing wealth from the richest individuals to the poorest. Some have argued that these redistributions should be in the form of taxation, while others of more revolutionary persuasion advocate the appropriation of others’ holdings by force. Regardless of how it is attempted,
Acquiring something by trade, by purchase, by gift, or on loan is a justifiable claim to a possession, but if something is acquired by extortion or thievery, then that holding is not just and Nozick would argue that in a free society, such an injustice would need to be rectified. Nozick’s Entitlement Theory is historical. If the sequence of events leading up to someone acquiring an object is justifiable, then so is the acquisition. If, for example, a burglar stole a television and then sold it to a friend, and that friend gave me the television as a gift, I would still not be entitled to the television since it was first acquired by unjust means. Therefore, as long as a given distribution of wealth came about by just means, then that distribution, according to Nozick is also just, regardless of how unequal the distribution may be. Those who complain about wealth inequality must understand that the current distribution of wealth has come about through voluntary exchange and the laws of supply and demand acting throughout history. Even though some people are extraordinarily wealthy and some live in destitute poverty, does not entail that anybody (especially the government) can claim possession of another’s holding for the purpose of