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