The Argument Against Nozicks Distributive Justice Essay -- Law

Argument Against Nozicks Distributive JusticeRobert Nozick argues in his Entitlement Theory that there are three main topics in the h whiz and only(a)stice of holdings the acquisition of un-held things, the ravish of holdings, and the rectification of evil in holdings.1 Nozicks theory of what makes a canalise of holdings just should be spurned for two key reasons and the rectification of injustice of holdings should be rejected for two key reasons. Robert Nozick declares a transfer of holdings just if the exchange is voluntary and if the holding being exchanged was originally acquired by just means.2 The first key point of this argument that should be rejected is the fact that the grounds for a just transfer of holdings relies solely on whether or not the exchange was voluntary by both parties. With this low-spirited standard of justice, it permits voluntary exchanges in which one party unknowingly, probably because of share they cannot control such as a limited mental capa city, could voluntarily commit to a transfer in holdings that will negatively continue them, either indirectly or directly. These people may voluntarily combine to a transfer in holdings that they would most certainly not adjudge to if they were in their right soul and could consider all of the factors playing into the transfer. in that respect are these people who are not in their right mind or who dont have to mental capacity to concord their best interests in mind, and there are also people who would willingly take advantage of these people to further their own selfish agendas. If one was to uphold Nozicks grounds for what makes a transfer of holdings just, one is allowing people to cheat people with lesser mental capacities out of what is sincerely theirs through ... ...nd make the whole process of trade and acquisition in truth slow and cumbersome. Unless there was someway to effectively track and record every(prenominal) transaction in a fast and streamlined way, the rectification of holdings could effectively halt a market.Thus, for the four reasons stated above, Robert Nozicks topics of transfer of holdings and rectification of holdings within his entitlement theory should be rejected. Not only are Nozicks propositions inefficient and immoral, they may also create double standards as to what constitutes as an injustice. Works Cited1 Robert Nozick, Distributive Justice from Anarchy, State and Utopia in Tamar Szab Gendler, Susanna Siegel, and Steven M. Cahn (eds.), The Elements of ism Readings from Past and Present (New York Oxford University Press, 2008), 309310.2Nozick, 309310.3Nozick, 310.4Nozick, 311.