Libertarianism-Locke (Handout)[2]

Libertarianism-Locke (Handout)[2] - Core Course Mr22:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Katharina Held Tuesday 7, 2003 Libertarianism/Locke Nozick Minimal state (minimal night-watchman state): state limited to protecting persons against murder, assault, theft, fraud, and so forth (162) - claim, that a more extensive state is justified, because necessary for distributive justice (distribution, exchange, recources, holdings) - the holdings of a person are just, if he is entitled to them by the principles of acquisiton and transfer , or by the principles of rectification of injustice (153) - Entitlement theory of justice of distribution vs end-result principles (see The Friedmans: equality of outcome) Entitlement theory is historical; wether a distribution is just depends on how it came about current time slice principles (end-result): determined by how things are distributed - Principle of justice in acquisition: - left libertarians: unappropriated resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner – redistribution by payment to others - right libertarians (Nozick): resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes his labor with them, or merely claims them (no redistribution) - Principle of justice in transfer: - people can appropriate holdings through other persons (voluntary exchange, gifts, etc.) - Rectification of injustice: - if any person violates either the principle of acquisition or the principle of transfer, the injustice must be rectified Patterning - patterned principles of distribution: a distribution is to vary along with some natural dimension „to each according to his . ....... “ (moral merit, needs, etc.) - almost every suggested principle of distributive justice is patterned, but a distribution arrived by the principle of entitlement is not patterned because: the distribution does not depend on moral merits or needs, but only on the question wether the person is entitled to his holdings (by the principles of acqusition and transfer) [- production and distribution are not two seperate questions] - Example of Will Chamberlain/ Michael Jordan Is he entitled to his income? is the distribution injust?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course MORAL REAS 22 taught by Professor Sandel during the Fall '05 term at Harvard.

Page1 / 5

Libertarianism-Locke (Handout)[2] - Core Course Mr22:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online