Of the four theories of distributive justice we have discussed in class, the one theory that has the most plausibility is "justice as entitlement." This Nozickian theory is often considered a counterblast to Rawls' "justice as fairness" because it is a theory of extremes in comparison. When Rawls uses the original position to create an ideal of fairness, he, according to Nozick and Sandel, "does not take seriously the distinction between persons because it severely restricts people's rights to use their own natural and social assets" (Sterba pg. 20).
Robert Nozick's "Entitlement Theory" creates a system of distribution that allows for holdings to be attained and transferred by legitimate means. This is in opposition to a redistributive form of justice, such as Rawls', which is an attempt to level the inequality by taking from some to give to others with less. Nozick's form of distribution maintains the respect for people and their holdings by allowing the free market to be a cornerstone of society. Thereby, the government's role in the economic sector would be minimal, allowing for increased productivity levels for those that engage in the free market. The rights of the citizens, and of legal aliens, of a liberal democratic state should not be infringed upon through the use of taxation or illegitimate transfers of holdings; self-ownership is a right that all people in a liberal (the broad sense) state could agree on.
Taxation is a form of forced labor by Nozick's account. Rawls' would argue that taxation is fundamental in maintaining public institutions and goods that benefit all in some cases and those in most need. Taxation would provide those most needy with a base-needs minimum. Nozick's objection to redistribution is that it uses some peo ...