Nozick’s Libertarianism seems fair and convincing on the surface but has many critics. The Marxist philosopher G. A. Cohen points out that power in society is unevenly distributed. People at the top of society will find it much easier to remain there than for some one at the bottom of the social scale. It is far easier to maintain wealth than to create it out of nothing. Society is hardly meritocratic. Untalented individuals born at the top of the social hierarchy will have unfair advantages, which more talented individuals at the bottom of the social pecking order may not. For example, the wealthy can buy good educations for their children from private schools and can give them connections that poorer families cannot. Many people have been given opportunities in show business or politics simply because of who their parents are, for example Lisa Marie Presley, Kelly Osborne or George Bush Junior.
People at the bottom of society can often be restricted from moving up the social ladder because of discrimination. They may be from a disdained ethic group or have the wrong accent. In essence, some one at the top of the social hierarchy may be at an unfair advantage to some one at the bottom. If some one is talented but born in the wrong social echelon, a minimalist state might not ensure that talents are nurtured sufficiently to enable them to compete fairly with those from a more privileged class. A Marxist would argue that it is much fairer to have an egalitarian society where everyone has the same amount of wealth and thus the same amount of opportunities as in a Libertarian state success can be bought if one is lucky enough to have the resources.
Communitarians also criticise Libertarianism. Michael Sandel argues that Nozick assumes that society distributes goods in a free market of talents and that individuals are unencumbered by social attachments. Talented people might be restricted because of family obligations such as children that need caring for. This can often impinge on careers and can mean that people do not always get the rewards which their talent could earn them.
Michael Walzer argues that society is divided up into different spheres. Each sphere has its own criteria for distributing goods so that goods have their own proper meaning within their own sphere. The community determines and preserves these meanings in a just society. Money and commodities do have their own legitimate sphere in society. However, they also act as a solvent breaking down the boundaries between spheres. In essence, Walzer believes that there are some things that should not be bought, but provided by the community which has come to recognize the true value of these goods. These kinds of good could involve things such as education and healthcare. Communitarianism does not believe that these are privileges which should be earned as is suggested in Nozick’s Libertarian Society.
Mackintyre and Taylor are communitarians that believe virtues such as duty, goodness and kindness has disappeared from society leaving only self interested individuals. Libertarianism is selfish as it is only concerned only with reward, and means that people do not see themselves as belonging to a community. The community should provide for everyone including the less talented. People should not be interested in simply accumulating to their own wealth.
Libertarianism may seem to be fair but does seem to encourage selfishness and upon closer examination, leaves people at the bottom of the social order at a disadvantage.
