Difference between revisions of "The Entitlement Theory of Justice"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Mathematical induction has two steps: a base step that shows an initial condition to be true, and an inductive step that shows that the next condition from a true condition will also be true. Nozick's base step is justice in acquisition, and his inductive step is justice in transfer. | Mathematical induction has two steps: a base step that shows an initial condition to be true, and an inductive step that shows that the next condition from a true condition will also be true. Nozick's base step is justice in acquisition, and his inductive step is justice in transfer. | ||
| − | Perfection of the | + | Perfection of the original situation and the steps is required. Just initial situations are required (an impracticality.) And a demonstration of perfect justice-maintainance of the steps is required: a step may be just without maintaining justice. (This is a big problem: he's making an inductive argument without showing the critical step.) But worse, in real life we can't ever have perfect justice of steps or starting situations. So the question is whether the steps move us closer or further from justice, and where an equilibrium will be reached (if one exists.) The Nozick statement has an implied binary logic model which real life doesn't match. Nozick provides neither, and thus gives us only an illusion of a valid argument. So why is he using the form of mathematical induction? |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | But worse, in real life we can't ever | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | Nozick provides neither, and thus gives us only an illusion of a valid argument. | + | |
| − | So why is he using the form of mathematical induction? | + | |
Nozick simulates mathematical induction (and uses the word induction), without meeting the requirements. Google induction "justice in transfer" | Nozick simulates mathematical induction (and uses the word induction), without meeting the requirements. Google induction "justice in transfer" | ||
| Line 100: | Line 88: | ||
Nozick's "patternless" entitlement theory of justice relies on an enormous | Nozick's "patternless" entitlement theory of justice relies on an enormous | ||
interference with people: the whole system of property rights. A system of | interference with people: the whole system of property rights. A system of | ||
| − | periodic taxation is trivial compared to the continual, omnipresent duties | + | periodic taxation is trivial compared to the continual, omnipresent duties of forbearance that other people's property impose on us. I cannot walk there |
because somebody else owns that land. While I can walk down a city street, I cannot make use of the vast wealth surrounding me unless I bribe the owners withan adequate payment. Denying this is a pattern maintained at a cost of huge expense and interference is ridiculous. | because somebody else owns that land. While I can walk down a city street, I cannot make use of the vast wealth surrounding me unless I bribe the owners withan adequate payment. Denying this is a pattern maintained at a cost of huge expense and interference is ridiculous. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Old Notes: | ||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
Nozick's "Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is in itself | Nozick's "Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is in itself | ||
