This paper logically refutes Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Justice, which attempts to provide an account of what justice requires with respect to property.
The paper states that Nozick’s arguments against redistributive tax is not a valid argument, neither on the microscopic nor the macroscopic scale. The author believes that it cannot be said that any individual person has any right to a specific piece of property if Nozick’s idea of property is correct and is to be the standard by which people are said to own property.
`In `Anarchy, State, and Utopia`, Nozick argues that redistributive policies in which the wealthy are taxed to help out poor people is unjust and give the poor property rights over the wealthy. The redistribution of wealth via the government is unjust because it violates all of these principles. First of all, the poor do not work for the wealth given to them, that is a violation of the first principle. Second, there is abundant opportunities for people to make money themselves (2nd principle). So why should the government hand the poor something that the wealthy person has presumably worked for? Lastly, the transfer of property is not just, because the wealthy personally and voluntarily do not agree with the transfer. Therefore, wealth redistribution through involuntary taxation results in the poor having property rights over the wealthy the case.`