Philosophy 4 Lecture: Robert Nozick (02/18/16)

Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia

-most respected philosophical objection to Rawls
-concerned with distributive justice (theories about what is a just arrangement in
terms of distribution of benefits + burdens in a system of social cooperation)
~what is the fairest way to divvy things up?
-Nozicks primary concern: minimal state is most extensive that can be justified
(minimal state interference)
~supposed to be free person but born into a state and state interferes
~in order for state to be just, must be minimal
Should be engaged in police protection, provide system of courts,
external threats
Anything else is stepping on your rights
~distributive justice is not a neutral term, there is connotation
Suggests some mechanism by which a supply of things is given out
Suggests that redistribution may be justified if distributing
mechanism is unfair
But there is no central distribution in control of how things are
distributed. What each person gets is received from their actions;
voluntary in free society
Distributing wealth like distributing mates, doesnt happen, is
voluntary
Distribution are result of individual decisions which is not unjust in
free society
-better term instead of distributive justice = holdings
~holdings = goods/economic value of things that we hold as people
~principle of justice in holdings describes what justice requires in terms of
holdings (I hold something, is it being held justly? Did you steal etc..)
-entitlement (justice in holdings)
~3 major topics
1) justice in acquisition (if you acquire goods w/o force, fraud, theft; then
holdings have been acquired justly)
2) justice in transfer (you may transfer holdings as long as not forced/result of
fraud)
3) rectification of injustice (for instances of injustice, should include an
analysis of how peoples holdings would look if instances of injustice did not occur)

~if each person in society has their holdings justly, then the distribution is
just
~whatever holdings arise from a just situation by just steps are themselves
just
If A has a holding justly and transfers to B, then B is justly held

Historical vs. End Result

-entitlement theory is historical, whether a distribution is just depends on how the
distribution came about
-utilitarians look at now and try to maximize history
-humans naturally have a notion of desert, doesnt seem fair to just give money to
a person b/c they would be happier
-even socialists have a notion of historical desert parasitic owners of capital do
not fairly share benefits of workers (believing there is some historically based
unfairness), rigging the system
Patterns
-most forms of distributive injustice are patterned.
~look, at information in distribution and use that as justification to alter
distribution
~distribution to IQ/merit/accordance to needs/benefit least well off in society
would be patterned
-even if patterns emerge, libertarian principles of justice have no required pattern
(refer to 3 topics in entitlement)
~as long as there is no injustice in the 3 topics, distribution of holdings is
irrelevant
-Friedrich von Hayek has patterned conception
~suggests a justifiable pattern: distribution according to perceived benefits
given to others
-what if transfers exhibit a form that seems irrational? Would that be unjust?
~(ex.) all hard working people give away their money to people who are lazy,
NOT UNFAIR, everything is done justly
-how liberty upsets pattern
~Imagine some distribution scenario that you believe to be just, D1
~Wilt Chamberlain example
When free people willingly engage in any system where a fairer distribution
D1 changes to D2, the distribution is just because the actions that led to the
change were just