Robert Nozick Difference Principle

Opposing John Rawls’ difference principle is Robert Nozick, who questions the government’s responsibility to exercise the difference principle. Nozick’s believe is that the difference principle is unjust and commences his argument of a just society, through his entitlement theory, by contemplating the process of property ownership. In doing so, Nozick embraces John Locke’s position through the “Just Original Acquisition” principle. According to Locke, the “Just Original Acquisition” bases the ownership of property on two requisites in order to properly claim ownership of property. The first requisite is that the particular piece of interest must be previously unclaimed or unowned and the second requisite is that some sort of labor must be accomplished in order to properly take claim ownership of property. Upon meeting the previously mentioned requisites and respecting the Lockean proviso (leave as good as and enough for others), the ownership claim for property is considered just. Nozick furthers his entitlement theory by
Nozick debunks the notion of a nonexistent government by stating that no government would fail to preserve basic justice due to potential anarchy brought on by people failing to respect the “Just Original Acquisition” and “Just Transfer” principles. On the other hand, Nozick debunks Rawls’ “Utopian” society by stating that it is composed of an excessive amount of government that would enforce heavy taxations on laborers in order to preserve the practice of the difference principle. The enforced taxation to preserve the Rawls’ distributive justice induces the idea of forced labor. According to Nozick, the idea of imposed heavy taxation to fulfill Rawls’ distributive principle is unjust and comparable to