Similarities Between Nozick And John Rawls

The issue of distributive justice is relevant in our society due to current thoughts on economic inequality in politics. The political philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick have differing views when it comes to the topic of distributive justice. This analyze the positions of John Rawls and Robert Nozick, finding that Nozick’s view of distribution is preferable to Rawls’ difference principle because people deserve to keep what they earn and their earnings should not be taken away from them because that would be a violation of their personal liberties.
John Rawls wrote the book, A Theory of Justice. Rawls defines society as a group of people who create and cooperate with set rules; the rules are burdens in society whereas cooperating in
Nozick’s book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Anarchy, State, and Utopia is an objection to Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. Nozick believes in the minimal state, which suggests that the government only has one role in society and that is to protect people by offering police protection, court systems, and military protection from external forces. He will say that anything more than that is a violation of your freedom. For example, Nozick believes that taxation to benefit the less well of in society is a violation of people rights. He understands that police officers need to be paid and it is justifiable for taxes to go towards that but he says systems such as welfare are a violation of people’s
Nozick uses the example of the basketball player, Wilt Chamberlin, to break down why patterned systems cannot exist. Wilt gets money from people in a society, who wants to watch him play basketball. Walt says that he will play only if everyone pays twenty-five cents extra per ticket. Everyone voluntarily agrees to pay the extra charge because they want to see him play. Walt now has all this money and the original distribution has changed. A voluntary exchange occurred between the people in society who chose to pay the extra charge and Walt’s bank