A free society necessitates the preservation of rights while still granting individuals within the society the freedom to do as they please - as long as their behaviors do not infringe on the rights of others. In free societies, inequality is inevitable. As a result, a governing body may be employed to monitor the scale of inequality and deliberate what must be done to combat major issues that hamper the progress of a nation. On one side of the spectrum, where John Rawls stands, individuals argue that some sort of government intervention is necessary to promote equality so a nation can reach the height of progress. On the other side of the political spectrum, where Robert Nozick stands, people view government intervention as a hindrance to
…show more content…
After outlining that an individual in a free society has the right to do what they want with their money, he states that “no end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with people’s lives” (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, p. 163). To Nozick, inequality is not the source of injustice, and if there were any efforts to subdue it, it would make the government more of an imposing force. As times change and individuals make more decisions and acquire more goods, there would be a need for surveillance to ensure that the distribution remains intact. Therefore, Nozick introduces simple terms: if an individual does not encroach on another individual’s rights while obtaining a good, they rightfully own that …show more content…
In order to support this ideology, he asserts that “historical principles of justice hold that past circumstances or actions of people can create differential entitlements or differential deserts to things” (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, p. 155). In other words, Nozick believes that if past actions were rendered just at the time, future circumstances do not change this fact. Inequality is only considered a side effect of these transactions, and if no injustice occurred during these transactions, then the existence of any disparities is justified. The ownership of goods, according to Nozick, is only the source of issues when the rights of other individuals are clearly
After outlining that an individual in a free society has the right to do what they want with their money, he states that “no end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with people’s lives” (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, p. 163). To Nozick, inequality is not the source of injustice, and if there were any efforts to subdue it, it would make the government more of an imposing force. As times change and individuals make more decisions and acquire more goods, there would be a need for surveillance to ensure that the distribution remains intact. Therefore, Nozick introduces simple terms: if an individual does not encroach on another individual’s rights while obtaining a good, they rightfully own that …show more content…
In order to support this ideology, he asserts that “historical principles of justice hold that past circumstances or actions of people can create differential entitlements or differential deserts to things” (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, p. 155). In other words, Nozick believes that if past actions were rendered just at the time, future circumstances do not change this fact. Inequality is only considered a side effect of these transactions, and if no injustice occurred during these transactions, then the existence of any disparities is justified. The ownership of goods, according to Nozick, is only the source of issues when the rights of other individuals are clearly