Exam 75: Robert Nozick: Against Liberalism

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick claims that a more-than-minimal state will

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick maintains that whether a distribution of goods is just depends upon how it came about.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick insists that redistribution of goods does not violate people's rights.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -To Nozick, seizing the results of someone's labor (e.g., through taxes) is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick says that almost every suggested principle of distribution is patterned.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick says that the minimal state is

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick believes that taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick proposes a state that is

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick says that in a "time-slice principle" of distribution, all that needs to be looked at, in judging the justice of a distribution, is who ends up with what.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick says that the term "distributive justice" is

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick favors patterned systems of distribution.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick declares that no end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with people's lives.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick asserts that a utilitarian theory of justice can never lead to an unjust distribution.

Nozick rejects the notion of distribution of society's benefits based on equality or desert. He maintains that if we rightfully possess any goods (i.e., we obtained them legitimately), then we own them; they are not ours because we are entitled to equal shares of them or because we deserve them. -Nozick's preferred principle of distribution is not patterned.