Robert Nozicks work entitled How Liberty Upsets Patterns Essay

Robert Nozicks work entitled How Liberty Upsets Patterns - Essay Example Nozick begins his argument by poising that people who have contrary beliefs regarding distributive justice, particularly those who abide by notions of patterned distributive justice such as utilitarianism and egalitarianism, should not refute his distribution theory of justice, especially with regard to holdings. Nozick’s theory takes a non-patterned consideration into the element of justice in holdings. According to Nozick, the repeated application of justice in holdings typically results in entitlement of holdings. Nozick bases his argument squarely on the concept of non-patterned principle of distributive justice, which attempts to elucidate the fact that patterned conceptions regarding justice in distribution are typically unable to work well with notions of liberty. Nozick uses the now famous argument of Wilt Chamberlain to demonstrate the manner in which patterned principles that deal with just distribution are essentially irreconcilable with all notions of liberty. Nozi ck poises that Rawl’s difference principle fails to provide a real description of the society today. (Sandel 2007, 359). The society runs on distribution patterns, which are defined by the desires of people who in it. Various distribution patterns are entirely just because they are based on the desires of the society. However, Nozick argues that, while an alternative distribution pattern in society does not typically conform to the favored patterns of people within the society, the alternative distribution pattern is still just. According to Nozick, the Wilt Chamberlain example essentially demonstrates that no standard patterned tenet of distributive justice can be well-suited with liberty. This is primarily because, in order to conserve the patterns provided for by patterned distribution where the society’s desires dictate distribution patterns, the state will need to interfere with the capacity of people to exchange freely their instinctual distributive justice on a constant basis. This is primarily because, as Nozick argues, all exchanges of distributive justice in patterned principles essentially require the constant violation of the patterns for which they were originally formulated. Nozick concludes that end-state, as well as a vast majority of patterned distributive justice principles provide for unfair ownership of people, their labor and actions. As a consequence, such principles provide for the shift from the notions of self ownership to those of limited property rights in the actions and beings of other people (Sandel 2007, 358). In essence, this means that, under patterned distributive justice systems, the example of Wilt Chamberlain shows that third parties will have a just claim on other people (Chamberlain) provided that the third parties transfer something valuable to the individual in question. Under patterned distributive patterns, third parties have legitimate shares in the individual since their shares cannot be changed. From the reading, several misunderstandings become clear; the greatest source of concern is the Wilt Chamberl