The Nozickian case for Rawls’ difference principle
Choose one of these to see this page:
- http://web.archive.org/web/20160323010245/http://mattbruenig.com/2013/08/17/the-nozickian-case-for-rawls-difference-principle/ or search for this URL in the Internet Archive.
- Search the Internet Archive for the old URL http://mattbruenig.com/2013/08/17/the-nozickian-case-for-rawls-difference-principle/.
"There is a very strong Nozickian case to be made for Rawls’ difference principle. Because the reality of scarcity causes the use of resources to necessarily infringe upon the liberty of others, it makes sense to say (as Nozick does) that you should only be able to undertake such use if it does not worsen the position of others."
Nothing in this index yet.
The problem is that this homesteading action is outrageously un-libertarian. It involves a single actor unilaterally deciding to eliminate the previously existing access every other person had to some piece of the world, doing so without the consent of those dispossessed of their access, and through the use of violence (i.e. if you try to access the object they now claim to own, they physically push you off or worse).
Matt Bruenig, "The Nozickian case for Rawls’ difference principleThe Nozickian case for Rawls’ difference principle"