Libertarian Perspective

Nozick and Justice as Entitlement

Robert Nozick, a Harvard colleague of Rawls, wrote his famous Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974). It is said that this was in response to Rawls’s conception of distributive justice. Nozick’s arguments constitute a powerful reply from the libertarian perspective, which seeks distribution as per rights and entitlement or desert and not equality. The following features characterise Nozick’s theoretical arguments:

• Nozick argues from the libertarian perspective and advocates distribution in society based on rights or entitlement. Everybody should receive rewards as per his/her entitlement. Entitlement arises by employing skills, abilities and talents, which are individual assets. His is an entitlement theory of justice. We can notice while Rawls treats these skills as common assets, Nozick regards them as individual assets.
• He opposes Rawls’s equalitarian and welfare theory of distributive justice based on equality principle. He argues that this leads to state intervention and imposition of external judgement of how an individual should distribute what one earns due to his/her own skill, merit or abilities. In short, Nozick alleges that equality-based redistribution (that Rawls advocates) involves ‘coerced redistribution’ which is illegitimate.
• Due to rights or entitlement based position, Nozick’s model of a society that provides justice espouses the following assumptions:
  1. Nozick’s argument is that there are two principles of justice—historical and end-state.⁴² Historical principles relate to past circumstances or historical actions that create differential entitlements amongst individuals. This means different skills, talents, merits or abilities possessed by different individuals are created historically. For example, a doctor’s special skill acquired and possessed either due to his/her intelligence and talent or family background or high education, is historically created. Nozick supports historical principle as the basis of justice. He critizises the end-state principle that espouses human needs and social equality as the basis of justice. Now, theoretically this requires Nozick to demonstrate what historical principles are to be followed so that the distribution in society is just. On the other hand, Rawls has argued for the end-state principle of justice seeking equality and most rational outcome judged by the benefit to least advantageous.
  2. Nozick suggests that people have prior rights possessed independent of society. This becomes the basis for justification of inviolable property rights. He follows Locke’s tradition on inviolable natural rights of property. However, to argue that those who have acquired wealth or property have done so justly, Nozick provides three rules applying which one can determine its justness.⁴³ These are: (a) wealth has to be justly acquired, which means without infringing others similar rights on the wealth or by stealing (principle of just initial acquisition); (bi) wealth has to be justly transferred from one responsible person to another (principle of just transfer); and (cii) if wealth has been transferred or acquired unjustly, this should be rectified (principle of rectification). The first rule (initial acquisition) matches with Locke’s concept of acquiring property by mixing one’s labour (labour criteria) and leaving sufficient for others (sufficiency criteria). The second rule (just transfer) implies transfer or exchange of property or goods between individuals based on voluntary and formal arrangements without involving any coercion. This appears to follow the doctrine of social contract. The third rule talks of rectification of any unjust transfer of wealth. However, rectification involves an authority to rectify and provide arbitration. This could be a basis of state intervention in Nozick’s libertarian state.
  3. Nozick feels that if the three rules (Nozick terms them as ‘justice preserving’ rules) have been followed, individuals have inviolable property rights on what they create and possess. There should not be external intervention to correct right to property.
  4. Inviolable or natural right to property is also associated with safeguarding liberty of an individual from external political and social encroachment. In this Nozick invokes Mill’s concern. Nozick is of the view that a government may not coerce citizens ‘for their own good or protection.’ Like J. S. Mill, Robert Nozick has shown concern for external interference. Nozick criticizes Rawls’s defence of welfarism and puts forward the libertarian view of distribution based on rights, desert and entitlement.
  5. Nozick’s arguments suggest that he supports liberty, right to property, entitlement based distribution, ‘minimal non-interventionist state’, etc. In Nozick’s scheme of things, there is no concept of universal right or public morality that require redis-tributive justice.
• Based on these assumptions, Nozick formulates his theory of justice that can be termed as ‘entitlement theory’ of justice. Nozick’s statement of justice is:From each according to what he chooses to do, to each according to what he makes for himself (perhaps with the contracted aid of others) and what others choose to do for him and choose to give him of what they’ve been given previously … and haven’t yet expended or transferred.

In this, Nozick lays down a clear statement of justice based on entitlement. Everyone is to work as per one’s skill or choose the profession he/she best suited to. Distribution to each should be based on what one makes for oneself. However, this self-creation clause is made flexible by the provision of even contracting labour. Thus, property can be acquired either by one’s own labour, talent or skill or by employing somebody else’s contracted. In the entitlement theory, people having special skills are entitled to use them to their own advantages.