Critically evaluate Nozick's response to Rawls's theory of justice Essay

Critically evaluate Nozick's response to Rawls's theory of justice - Essay Example Thus, the entitlement theory of justice, which is comprised in Nozick’s response to Rawls’ theory of justice, reveals the clash between libertarianism and social welfare liberalism on the topic of justice. Although both Nozick and Rawls belonged to the social contract tradition in political philosophy, Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice should be realised primarily as an opposition to Rawls’ theory of distributive justice and it everyone in the society is entitled to engage in distribution of property. As Suri Ratnapala maintains, â€Å"Rawls’ case for distributive justice in its simplest form is that a system of social cooperation makes everyone better off than a system of non-cooperation in which each person fends for themselves by their own effort. Principles of justice are required to distribute the surplus that results from social cooperation.† (Ratnapala 2009, P. 346). Therefore, Rawls’ theory of justice is mainly based on th e hypothetical social contract among the self-interested members in a state of ignorance regarding their future, and they take part in a game of risk minimisation. The libertarian response to Rawls’ theory of justice as offered by the American political philosopher Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia should be realised as belonging to the social contract tradition in political philosophy. ... In a reflective exploration of Nozick’s response to Rawls’s theory of justice, it becomes lucid that the contrasting books of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice and Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia have dominated the debate in analytical political philosophy for the last three decades. In his 1971 book, Rawls presented the case for a form of liberal egalitarianism which was challenged by Nozick’s arguments in favour of libertarianism, including the free market, absolute property rights, and the ‘minimal state’, presented in his book in 1974. Ever since the publishing of these contrasting books, a vast quantity of critical literature has been written on their political philosophy and Nozick has gained the approbation of the contemporary political philosophers as his arguments are strikingly close to the political spirit of the current age. â€Å"Nozick’s project is to defend the libertarian minimal state – akin to t he ‘night-watchman’ state of classical liberalism – which exists purely to safeguard the personal and property rights of individuals. The enterprise falls into three stage.† (Wolff 1991, P. 4). First of all, Nozick makes the argument, against the Anarchist, that a state as broad as a minimal state can be justified. Secondly, he makes his arguments against the defender of the extensive state by claiming that the minimal state is the most extensive form of legitimate state. Thirdly, he maintains that the minimal state is ‘inspiring’ as well as right, and there is no cause of regret. (Wolff 1991, P. 4). Therefore, in contradiction of Rawls’ case for a form of liberal egalitarianism, Nozick’s makes his pertinent arguments on the side of libertarianism which consists of the