John Rawls Fair Equality Of Opportunity Essay

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 market. Those less fortunate would receive these extra resources as a direct result of taxation. In this case, redistribution is just, as it allows those in disadvantageous positions an opportunity to develop their talents. Rawls ultimately believes that both principles are just, even though they require some form of redistribution. Now that John Rawls liberal argument in favor of redistribution has been …show more content…
Nozick would furthermore explain that although this pattern is compatible with some amounts of liberty, it is not compatible with the state that encompasses the most amount of liberty. This idea that the government should be providing the greatest amount of liberty possible is what I believe Nozick was stating when he claimed that liberty upsets patterns. Moreover, even though the welfare state allows for great deals of liberty, the minimalist state allows for even more liberty and is thus superior. One can furthermore conclude that redistribution is unjust and has no place within a government promoting