The Argument Against Nozicks Distributive Justice Essay -- Law

end Against Nozicks Distributive JusticeRobert Nozick argues in his Entitlement Theory that there atomic number 18 three main topics in the ripeice of holdings the acquisition of un-held things, the transfer of holdings, and the chastisement of in hardlyice in holdings.1 Nozicks theory of what makes a transfer of holdings just should be rejected for two key reasons and the rectification of injustice of holdings should be rejected for two key reasons. Robert Nozick decl atomic number 18s a transfer of holdings just if the supersede 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 detail 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 regular of justice, it permits voluntary exchanges in which one party unknowingly, probably because of circumstances they cannot curb such as a limited mental capacity, could voluntarily couch to a transfer in holdings that will negatively affect them, any indirectly or directly. These stack may voluntarily agree to a transfer in holdings that they would most certainly not agree to if they were in their right mind and could consider all of the factors playing into the transfer. There are these people who are not in their right mind or who dont have to mental capacity to keep their better interests in mind, and there are also people who would willingly engender advantage of these people to further their own selfish agendas. If one was to wield 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 rightfully theirs by dint of ... ...nd make the whole process of trade and acquisition very late and cumbersome. Unless there was someway to effectively track and record every operation in a fast and streamlined way, the rectification of hol dings could effectively hinder a market.Thus, for the four reasons stated above, Robert Nozicks topics of transfer of holdings and rectification of holdings inwardly his entitlement theory should be rejected. Not only are Nozicks propositions wasteful and immoral, they may also create double standards as to what constitutes as an injustice. work Cited1 Robert Nozick, Distributive Justice from Anarchy, State and Utopia in Tamar Szab Gendler, Susanna Siegel, and Steven M. Cahn (eds.), The Elements of Philosophy Readings from prehistorical and Present (New York Oxford University Press, 2008), 309310.2Nozick, 309310.3Nozick, 310.4Nozick, 311.