Nozicks idea of a just society named the ‘Entitlement theory’ completely differentiates from that of Rawls. Nozick believes citizens should only receive what they are entitled too. Nozick labels the state ‘Minimal state’, believing that the state should only enforce natural rights and administer justice by police force and court procedure (Wolff, 1991:73). According to Nozick the state should not interfere with members’ personal business or professions. Members should be allowed to purchase what they wish and exchange their goods through voluntary service. Members should not be distributed goods such as “State health benefits, grants, bursaries, welfare payments, child benefit and rent support” (Wolff, 1991:115). Nozick percieves the receiving of these goods unjust, mainly because they have been taxed out of other members of society’s earnings. The taxed earnings pay for other citizen’s benefits that are deemed worse off. Citizens do not wish to pay tax; citizens are forced to by the government. According to Nozick, this procedure is unjust. Nozick’s view is that citizens should keep the money they rightfully earn. If citizens were to voluntary donate this money, then the process would be justified.
Nozick does not believe that citizens should be made worse off, merely that other members of society should not benefit from receiving other members money. Members have worked hard for their money, why should it be given to someone else? Members should own their own property, brought from the money that they personally earned, the state should not intervene.
Nozick is rarely concerned with the outcome of his justified society. Providing all the processes are voluntary and justified then the outcome is irrelevant. If however the process is unjustified, this will also produce and unjustified outcome and two wrongs do not make a right.
Nozick’s and Rawls theory of a just society completely differ. Rawls believes that the state should equally distribute benefits to society’s members who are worse off. Nozick believes that the benefits are received through fraud, therefore are not justified. According to Rawls, if citizens have well paid jobs then they can be taxed and the money can be distributed to those earning less well paid jobs. Therefore both citizens benefit because one person has a well paid job, and the other person is receiving money. Nozick believes justification is keeping your own money, what you earn is what you get. Nozick is less concerned with equality. Nozick believes people are entitled to their own fortunes. Rawls however, supports state intervention and citizens benefiting from other peoples fortunes.
Walzer does not have a particular theory on justice, but he does have some thoughts on how a justified society would be. Walzer specifies that “There are no universal laws of justice. Instead we must see justice as the creation of a particular political community at a particular time, and the account we give must be given from within such a community” (Walzer, 1995:2). Each community will have different laws and cultures. The way that citizens live in Western societies completely differs to those living in the East. This means that we can not have one rule for justice, as justice has differing principles in each community.
Walzer promotes Distributive justice including the distribution of social goods and the spheres of distribution (Walzer, 1983:312). Goods include (property, money, welfare etc) that are distributed in society should only be distributed according to need and the actual meaning of the goods. Each good has a different meaning which some people may need that particular good more than others. Justice is distributing the needed goods to the needy. “From each according to his ability (or his resources); to each according to his socially reorganized needs” (Walzer, 1983:91). Members who are at need, for example people with disabilities, need to be looked after by the state ensuring that they have the needs to survive. Walzer understands that goods will be distributed unequally producing inequality. Inequality does not produce injustice provided members of society have shared meanings. “What a larger conception of justice requires is not that citizens rule and are ruled in turn, but that they rule in one sphere and are ruled in another – where ‘rule’ means not that they exercise power but that they enjoy a greater share than other people of whatever good is being distributed” (Walzer, 1983:321). The community understand that everyone can not rule the community. Ruling can not be taken in turns, and different people can not be in charge of different goods as this will lead to inequality. Walzer points out that people need to share a greater amount of goods in one sphere compared to another. For example, a disabled man may receive disability benefits therefore has a greater advantage to those not receiving the benefits. Non disabled people however may be in education or employment, therefore has the advantage in that sphere. Walzer basically proposes that justice is shared meanings in a community where different people are at an advantage to others in one sphere, but are at a disadvantage to others in another sphere. Everybody has different advantages and nobody suffers due to the needy being helped.
Rawl’s and Walzer’s theory of justice differ in the fact that Rawls proposes one main law of justice, where as Walzer proposes that there is no single law of justice, justice has a different means to each community. Rawls believes justice is benefiting the least advantaged the most. Walzer believes the needy must receive the benefits that they need, but other citizens need to be at an advantage to them in other spheres of justice. Both Rawls and Walzer agree that no member of society should ever be made worse off, and their needs must be attended too. Compared to Nozicks theory, Nozick does not agree in distributing goods in society, people should earn their own goods; unless the contract is voluntary therefore citizens may be made worse off. Nozick does not focus on the outcome. Both Walzer and Rawls strive for a justified outcome. Walzer’s idea of justice includes citizens having shared meanings and values. Rawls is only concerned with the least advantaged benefiting the most. Rawls does not take into consideration what justice may be to the other citizens of society. Walzer proposes each citizen to excel in a different sphere of justice. The thoughts of all citizens are irrelevant to Nozick as long as each citizen receives their rightful earning. Rawl’s and Walzer both propose it is fair for members of society to be taxed and pay for the less well off citizens.
The theories of justice do support the idea that social policies are fair. Social policies benefit the members of society who are in need. Rawls and Walzer propose that the needy need benefiting so they are treated fairly. No society would stand by to watch members starve, suffer from illness or are incapable of looking after themselves through a disability. These people need help from not only the state, but from citizens who are better off which can help them. The slight notion of unfairness is Nozicks idea of taxation. It is unfair that people can not keep all the money they own and let it be distributed to other members. If the money went to look after the generally sick people then probably quite a lot of people would voluntary give the money, however the money does go to people who are perfectly capable of looking after themselves. In this respect social policies can prove unfair, as people are generally forced to give up their money. Regardless of taxation social policies on the whole do benefit society. Citizens can receive the medial care they need, have houses provided for them, receive education and more. If we did not have social policies then some citizens in society would be made worse off and this is not justice. Justice is caring for all members of society, distributing fair social policies to cater for their needs.
References
Drake, R.F. (2001) The Principles of Social Policy, London: Palgrave
Kymlicka, W. (1990) Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction, (Oxford: Claredon Press)
Miller, D. & Walzer, M. (1995) Pluralism, Justice and Equality, (Oxford: OUP)
Rawls, J. (1972) A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press
Walzer, M. (1983) Spheres of Justice, A defence of Pluralism and Equality (Oxford: Basil Blackwell)
Wolff, J. (1991) Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State (Cambridge: Polity Press)
