John Rawls: The Sample Of Fair Equality Of Inequality

1087 Words 5 Pages
The difference principle ensures that any inequality maximizes the state of everyone 's well being. If those in disadvantageous positions are to be benefited by any inequality, it is because they have acquired more resources than before. Thus, Rawls believes that inequality is justified when resources acquired by the well-off end up in the hands of the least well-off. This in itself is a form of redistribution which Rawls feels is necessary, as it is to the benefit of everyone. Rawls also believes that the principle of fair equality of opportunity is justified even though it too requires redistribution. The principle of fair equality of opportunity would directly grant those less fortunate with the resources necessary to compete in the free …show more content…
This new distribution doesn’t follow the original favored distribution D1 however, and to further revert back to the just Distribution of D1 would require that resources be relocated from Wilt Chamberlain back to the masses. That or citizens must be kept from distributing their extra resources as they please (kept from being able to pay Wilt to play basketball). Either way, this results in a direct interference with peoples ' individual rights. "The general point illustrated by the wilt chamberlain example and the example of the entrepreneur in a socialist society is that no end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with people’s lives" (Nozick 163). Nozick concludes that John Rawls difference principle is therefore unjust as a form of patterned redistribution. Although libertarians deem Rawls argument as defunct, one must also consider the following defense put forth by liberals in response to Nozick’s claim that redistributive patterns upset …show more content…
Consider the welfare-state for example. If this patterned form of redistribution is implemented in order to provide everyone with their basic needs liberals believe it still provides a great deal of liberty. People can still go see their favorite basketball star, that star can become very rich, and little to no interference in people’s lives would be required outside the context of minor taxation. People in this welfare state could still exchange resources freely in an open market, but there would still be a concept of establishing a guaranteed minimum. Because this welfare state example is a pattern that still establishes great deals of liberty, liberals believe they have provided a counter example to Nozick 's claims that liberty upsets all redistributive patterns. Although liberals put forth an interesting defense, it still encompasses acts of injustice which cannot be overlooked. The idea that a welfare-state is acceptable simply because the system would allow for great deals of liberty is a weak argument. Allowing for a great deal of liberty is different than allowing for the greatest amount of liberty possible. The liberal suggestion of the welfare-state would require far more involuntary taxation than that of the minimalist state, and thus enables far more injustice. Nozick himself would be quick to refute the liberal response that a welfare-state

Related Documents