Nozick Distributive Justice
Robert Nozick breaks down his theory of distributive justice into three guidelines of justice which define how something not formerly owned by someone may be acquired, how possession of an item can be transferred from one individual to another and what should be done to resolve situations in which one of the first two rules in violated. For people to better understand his theory, Nozick uses a neutral term to define the possession of things, calling them “people’s holdings”. The principle of his theory suggests that the circulation of something is ‘just’ if every party is entitled to the holdings they own under the circulation. The two parts of this theory are broken down as “justice in acquisition”, how to acquire a holding justly from nature, and “justice in transfer”, how to transfer holdings justly. Justice in acquisition focuses on how people first come to own something, and which items can be rightfully owned. It suggests that an individually is just in holding if they have produced the item which they possess and if it is something that can be owned. For example, if you own a pin maker and have worked long hours producing pins, you rightfully have possession over those pins, and you can do with them what you want. Justice in transfer suggests that if one individual
…show more content…
Those in opposition argue that Nozick inaccurately interprets the idea of a patterned principle as detailing the circulation of absolute entitlement to the money being distributed from game attendees to Chamberlain. The issue is that the absolute right over property would not be given to people under a partially free distribution, one that allows individuals to choose how they allocate their holdings. Nozick is suggesting the situation is a free distribution, while referring to the entitlement to the money as an absolute
Those in opposition argue that Nozick inaccurately interprets the idea of a patterned principle as detailing the circulation of absolute entitlement to the money being distributed from game attendees to Chamberlain. The issue is that the absolute right over property would not be given to people under a partially free distribution, one that allows individuals to choose how they allocate their holdings. Nozick is suggesting the situation is a free distribution, while referring to the entitlement to the money as an absolute