R, Nozick. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. 1 st Ed. Basic Books: New York. Pp.

149-182
Distribution: allocation of resources, goods and opportunity in a society. Redistribution: The
reallocation of resources, goods, and opportunity from one distribution to another, typically with
the goal of social equality, justice, or equity (within a set principle). Entitlement theory: Each
person is entitled to their holdings via formulation: 1) Justice in acquisition: entitled to what is
acquired that is not anothers holding, 2) Justice in Transfer: a person may acquire a holding from
its owner in transfer, 3) Noone may justly acquire holding w/o repeated application of ½. // A
complete principle of DJ says that a dist. Where everyone is entitled to their holdings is just,
additionally, something is just if it arises via another dist. By legitimate means. Whatever arises
from a just situation via just means is itself just. Historical and End Result Principles:
Entitlement theory is historic, time slice principles are not, they determine a dist. Is just based on
a structural perspective. They look at who has what, they see identical structure in B10 and A2 to
A10 B2. The distribution need only count at the time in question. // Nozick thinks people will not
accept current time slice principle as constituting an entire story of distribution, we see a murder
based on deserving their lot, not based on their 3 dollars at the time of observation. Therefore,
these are End Result Principles, not compatible with assessing distribution. Patterning: Principle
of Dist. Is patterned if it specifies a dist. To vary according to order of natural dimension, i.e.
wages ordered for IQ. They are not historical, they rely on end state structural observation. Most
principles are patterned “to each according to his need, moral merit..”. Entitlement is not
patterned in this exact sense. FA Hayek, for example, developed the idea that we should reject
attempts t impress pattern of moral merit, instead for an idea of ‘value’. Similarly to RN, this is
arbitrary unless we find an acceptable initial set of holdings. RN and FAH are patterned, but it is
a strand rather than a demand, people would only accept a system yielding at least somewhat
patterned results, but it should be the result of underlying principle rather than distribution,
transfer of holdings needs to seem non-arbitrary. To ask “to each according to his…” is to assume
objects came from nowhere, “in capitalist society people transfers holdings with how much they
perceive it to benefit him…” (p159). Entitlement theory may be described as “to each as he
chooses, to each as they are chosen (160). WILT CHAMBERLAIN D1: everyone has equal
share, W has great demand in BB terms. Wilt signs contract where he gets 25c for every ticket,
people freely drop it in box. Where 1million ppl come to game, he ends up with $250,000, they
all have either 100 or 99.75. People invariably freely chose to see wilt, and if D1 (of radical
equality) is just, then D2 is just on the basis of legitimate transfer. Conversely, in a Socialist
society, where End-result principles govern, it is assumed that everyone’s needs are met by
regular allotment, but this does’nt account for invariable wants. If someone works overtime,
perhaps they may acquire the means to acquire their wants. Perhaps many if not most would enter
this persons private sphere, unless otherwise forbidden. The pattern theorist cannot explain how
innocuous actions can give rise to an injustice. Second, the enforcement of a pattern theory
requires constant redistribution of holdings, and that prevents people from forming legitimate
expectations about their future holdings. Criticisms: it wrongly assumes that all consensual
transfers of holding are in every way moral or legitimate. Manipulation is rampant in both
entertainment and necessities and that’s the direct result of the strain of thinking that Nozick and
co. have promoted.// You can demonstrate that wilt and ET are both just as resemblant of patterns
as other pattern. I.e. your ‘value’ is only contingent on other arbitrary factors, etc.// over the long
term, Wilt argument instills immense inequality that is not justified by the seeming rationality of
just transfers. //Finally, his theory also entails a fair amount of regular, rather than irregular,
interference in the lives of people. His theory entails inequality. As historical analysis shows,
states that allow rampant inequality frequently experience longer working hours as well as a
reduction in de facto opportunities for labourers and poorer people. This implication reduces the
conclusions effectiveness.