Nozick Redistribution Is Wrong
A just society should be one that leads to progression and protects an individual's rights and freedoms. In this paper I will take Rawls position that we would create a more just society by creating a minimum standard of living for everyone.
One of the main points presented in Nozick’s theory is that redistribution is wrong because it is unjust to steal resources that were justly earned from one person and to give it to someone else. In principle Nozick is correct that redistribution is unjust in the sense that we are taking resources from one person to give to another, however, Nozick’s view doesn’t account for the fact that people aren’t born with equal opportunity so without redistribution it results in a hierarchy that keeps increasing. …show more content…
The moral thing to do when you see someone starving is to help them out, but if you put it in a theory of justice so that you have to help them out every time they’re starving all it does in the long run is it makes that person too reliant on you. It’s the idea of “feed a man to fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime”. Of course no one likes seeing people in desperation, but historically some of the best innovations also come in times of desperation. There was a time when there seemed to be limited habitable land and no way to get to land other than the one you were born on, but now we have technology that allows us to travel to different regions of the world with ease. If we just redistributed the land that was available to use equally there would be nothing to drive settlers to seek out new land and opportunities. Lastly, redistribution also minimizes competition within society. Competition is very important in society it’s what drives people to make new advances and also leads to overall better quality of goods, for example if there was no competition for food our standard for the quality of food we eat would be much lower. So seeing people in desperation or seeing a huge wealth gap might not be the most pleasant thing but it’s also what motivates people to make new innovations and drive society
One of the main points presented in Nozick’s theory is that redistribution is wrong because it is unjust to steal resources that were justly earned from one person and to give it to someone else. In principle Nozick is correct that redistribution is unjust in the sense that we are taking resources from one person to give to another, however, Nozick’s view doesn’t account for the fact that people aren’t born with equal opportunity so without redistribution it results in a hierarchy that keeps increasing. …show more content…
The moral thing to do when you see someone starving is to help them out, but if you put it in a theory of justice so that you have to help them out every time they’re starving all it does in the long run is it makes that person too reliant on you. It’s the idea of “feed a man to fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime”. Of course no one likes seeing people in desperation, but historically some of the best innovations also come in times of desperation. There was a time when there seemed to be limited habitable land and no way to get to land other than the one you were born on, but now we have technology that allows us to travel to different regions of the world with ease. If we just redistributed the land that was available to use equally there would be nothing to drive settlers to seek out new land and opportunities. Lastly, redistribution also minimizes competition within society. Competition is very important in society it’s what drives people to make new advances and also leads to overall better quality of goods, for example if there was no competition for food our standard for the quality of food we eat would be much lower. So seeing people in desperation or seeing a huge wealth gap might not be the most pleasant thing but it’s also what motivates people to make new innovations and drive society