·
Objection to redistribution of wealth:-
o
Reduces incentive to work and overall decreasing
wealth and consequentially utility of redistribution (Utilitarian Argument)
o
Redistribution without consent amounts to coercion
(Libertarian View)
·
Favour unrestricted markets and oppose
government regulation not on grounds of efficiency but human freedom
·
Supports minimal state that limits itself to
enforcing contracts, protecting private property and keeping peace (Nozick’s
vision of state – Watchman State)
·
They oppose:-
o
Paternalistic Policies such as wearing of helmet
while driving two wheeler
o
Moral legislation such as prohibition of
abortion
o
Redistribution of wealth or income
·
Nozick rejects the idea that a just distribution
consists of a certain pattern-such as equal income, or equal utility, or equal
provision of basic needs and rather focuses on how such distribution came into
existence.
·
Nozick argues that distributive justice depends
on two requirements:-
o
Justice in initial holdings - if the resources
you used to make your money were legitimately yours in the first place. (should
not be stolen or taken by force or fraud)
o
Justice in transfer - if you made your money
either through free exchanges in the marketplace or from gifts voluntarily
bestowed upon you by others.
·
For Nozick, if above two requirements are met
one is entitled to what he is and cannot be deprived of the same by the state
without his consent.
·
He criticizes employment of distributive justice
for trying to create equality as it:-
o
Needs repeated intervention in the free market to
undo the effects of the choices people make
o
It violates the rights of those whose wealth is
being taken away
§
Taxation of earnings from labour is on a par
with forced labour.
§
Based on concept of self-ownership
§
If an individual owns himself then he owns his
labour and accordingly also the fruits of his labour
.jpg)
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment