A second objection to Nozicks theory comes from Will Kymlicka, in his book Contemporary Political Philosophy3. He discusses Nozicks example of Wilt Chamberlain, a famous basketballer. The example is put forward that every time people come to see him play, they donate an extra 25 cents which goes directly to Wilt Chamberlain. At the end of the season, if one million people have attended his home games, he could end up with $250,000 extra income. Nozick believes that is entirely peoples choice as to how they choose to redistribute their wealth. Will Kymlicka does not agree with this as he argues that “it is unfair for the naturally disadvantaged to starve just because they have nothing to offer others...” 4 and Nozick ignores our intuition
…show more content…
Nozick does not agree with this and believes that this is a denial of self-ownership, another aspect of his theory being absolute. The liberal ideal is not that people who are naturally talented owe everything to the disadvantaged, but rather just enough to help bridge the inequality gap. Kymlicka then goes on to discuss Nozicks theory of owning property, which relates to his idea of owning your natural talents. Kymlicka makes the point that if he owns some land while he may have improved it through natural talents, he did not create it and therefore his title to it, and right to use it in legitimate market exchanges, can not come simply from his natural talents.8 This still leaves the question of how the initial legitimate acquistion occurred however, something that Kymlicka points out Nozick brushes over in his book,9 where he states that “Things come into the world already attached to people having entitlements over them” 10. The issue with Nozicks ideas around natural talents are …show more content…
Rawls holds the belief that people are allowed to keep all they acquire fairly, up to a certain point. That it can not be acquired if it “jeopardizes fair opportunity”, and an individual cannot “enjoy having more than others unless it....benefits the worst off group”12 This is compared to Nozick who holds steadfast in his belief that individuals are entitled to all they have acquired fairly, and that for the state to interfere would be to deny that they themselves are an individual with rights. This absolute ideology is discussed in detail by Michael J. Sandel in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice13, where he expresses that Nozick does not explain his beliefs on possession entirely, saying “Nozick is prepared to accept that people may not deserve their natural assets, but claims they are entitled to them nonetheless”, but does not show why this is so. 14 Sandels point displays a problem with Nozicks priority on the rights to property and his absolutism. The issue is that he does not advocate for what could be a functional society, in which a fair redistribution of all rewards and resources is required, for example in the communitarian sense. A redistribution of wealth and resources is needed for a society as with inequality comes further conditions such as
Nozick does not agree with this and believes that this is a denial of self-ownership, another aspect of his theory being absolute. The liberal ideal is not that people who are naturally talented owe everything to the disadvantaged, but rather just enough to help bridge the inequality gap. Kymlicka then goes on to discuss Nozicks theory of owning property, which relates to his idea of owning your natural talents. Kymlicka makes the point that if he owns some land while he may have improved it through natural talents, he did not create it and therefore his title to it, and right to use it in legitimate market exchanges, can not come simply from his natural talents.8 This still leaves the question of how the initial legitimate acquistion occurred however, something that Kymlicka points out Nozick brushes over in his book,9 where he states that “Things come into the world already attached to people having entitlements over them” 10. The issue with Nozicks ideas around natural talents are …show more content…
Rawls holds the belief that people are allowed to keep all they acquire fairly, up to a certain point. That it can not be acquired if it “jeopardizes fair opportunity”, and an individual cannot “enjoy having more than others unless it....benefits the worst off group”12 This is compared to Nozick who holds steadfast in his belief that individuals are entitled to all they have acquired fairly, and that for the state to interfere would be to deny that they themselves are an individual with rights. This absolute ideology is discussed in detail by Michael J. Sandel in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice13, where he expresses that Nozick does not explain his beliefs on possession entirely, saying “Nozick is prepared to accept that people may not deserve their natural assets, but claims they are entitled to them nonetheless”, but does not show why this is so. 14 Sandels point displays a problem with Nozicks priority on the rights to property and his absolutism. The issue is that he does not advocate for what could be a functional society, in which a fair redistribution of all rewards and resources is required, for example in the communitarian sense. A redistribution of wealth and resources is needed for a society as with inequality comes further conditions such as