John Rawls Vs Nozick

Both John Rawls and Robert Nozick have made major contributions to modern political philosophy. Rawls’ most successful philosophical work, “A Theory of Justice,” has helped construct both modern liberal and social democratic concepts of social justice. On the other hand, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”, Nozick’s most successful philosophical work, constructs a form of libertarianism traditionally associated with John Locke and other philosophers prescribed to individual rights and freedoms. Evidently, both philosophers exhibit two highly distinct political philosophies. One major difference between the two philosophies is the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of wealth. As a result, Rawls and Nozick are at two opposite ends of the political …show more content…
Nozick believes that Rawls’ views on liberty and his difference principle contradict each other. Unlike Rawls, Nozick argues that governments that forcibly tax the rich and subsequently support the impoverished demonstrate theft and violate the liberties of the rich. In addition, Nozick believes the protection of people’s property rights is essential in a just state, especially when the property is built or bought by honest work or natural talent. Essentially, Nozick believes that the sole role of a government is to uphold the enforcement of legal contracts and protect its citizens from crimes such as assault, robbery, and fraud. Furthermore, He suggests that “the fundamental question of political philosophy” is not how government should be created, but “whether there should be any state at all.” Essentially, Nozick’s political philosophy is similar to John Lock’s views that government is only legitimate when it protects the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. Without a government in place, such individual freedoms would come under threat in light of a lack of law and structure. As a result, Nozick concludes that a just state is a minimal state that acts as a “night watchman,” a vigilant body that only upholds legal contracts and the security of its citizen’s life, liberty, and property because people’s individual freedoms would be compromised with extensive government …show more content…
Therefore, both philosophers judge a society is just by how thoroughly its laws and policies follow their respective models rather than whether those laws and policies achieve morally acceptable outcomes. A primary difference between the two philosophies is the legitimacy of wealth distribution. According to Nozick, the possession of economic and social goods is only justified if it was made by means of just acquisitions or voluntary transfer. As a result, any form of taxation of the rich to, in turn, improve the prospects of the impoverished is unjustified and a violation of natural rights because it was involuntarily taxed from the rich. Therefore, Nozick believes there should be no safety net or welfare programs in a just state because such programs represent a fundamental violation of natural rights. In addition, Nozick finds it impossible to suggest that merely because society benefits from social cooperation, the impoverished deserve a fraction of the earnings rightly made by the rich. However, Nozick does more or less retain Rawls’ first principle of justice. Both philosophers believe that everyone in a just society deserves equal basic liberties such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the right to