Government Redistribution of Income is Theft Essay

865 Words 4 Pages
If a person obtains something fairly, the government should not take it away from them. The government would be stealing if they were to take from people when the goods were obtained fairly. If the person had stolen something then it would be fine for the government to take it back and return it to the original and proper owner.
Nozick feels that inequality is fine as long as the inequality was fairly made. If one person works to become rich and another person does not work, Nozick sees it as just for one to be rich and the other to be poor. This can be shown in the family example.
In the family example there is a family with two children, one child is eighteen and the other is eight . One child is ten years older and has a job,
…show more content…
Going back to the family example, if the older child were taking work away from the younger child that would be unjust. The parents would then be right in taking from the older and giving to the younger. The older child needs to make sure that if the younger child could work, then there would be enough quality work left for them. However, the younger child is not legally old enough to gain employment. Therefore, it would be unjust for the parents to take from the older child and give to the younger.
Rawls theory supports redistribution because he feels that inequality is innately unfair. It is unfair because one person is not more deserving of stuff than any other person is regardless of any factors. It does not matter how hard one person works compared to another it only matter that everybody is equal. He supports this with the hypothetical example of the original position. In the original position behind the veil of ignorance people will chose a system of rules that makes everybody as equal as possible because they do not know where they are going to be in society. This can be a useful thought experiment but because it never happened in history it is not useful in making law about how the government should or should not operate.
One of Rawls's point’s was that every decision needs to be to the benefit of the least advantaged of

Related Documents