The Entitlement Theory Robert Nozick

OVERVIEW Utilitarianism, Justice as Fairness, and the Entitlement Theory

Consequences be damned? Bleeding Heart Libertarians & the consequences-be-damned view: Does the intuitive appeal of a program that ignores consequences rest on the assumption that the consequences won’t be, intuitively, bad? What are the empirical facts of the matter? How can Libertarians respond? – The Whistling-in-the-Dark View: things will be sorted out in an ok way—as a matter of empirical fact. – The Hybrid View: in addition to Libertarian principles, we need so extras. – The Consequences-Be-Damned View: if people are miserable—so be it

Respect for Persons What does this mean? – Kant on persons as ends in themselves – Buber on ‘I and thou’ is just wrong. We’re all means… Rawls: Utilitarianism fails to recognize the status of individuals as ends-in- themselves Nozick: The endorsement of the imposition of sacrifices on individuals for the same of any conception of the social good (including distribution) fails to recognize individuals as ends-in-themselves

Separateness of Persons Parfits question: Individually, we each sometimes choose to undergo some pain or sacrifice for a greater benefit or to avoid a greater harm... In each case, some cost is borne for the sake of the greater overall good. Why not, similarly, hold that some persons have to bear some costs that benefit other persons more, for the sake of the overall social good? (Nozick ASU) Rawls: if we assume that the correct regulative principle for anything depends on the nature of that thing, and the plurality of distinct persons with separate systems of ends is an essential feature of human societies, we should not expect the principles of social choice to be utilitarian. (Rawls 1971: 29) Nozick: there is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people…with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. What happens is that something is done to him for the sake of others. Talk of an overall social good covers this up. (Nozick, 1973: 32–3)

Rights Natural Rights: on Nozick’s account, prior to the social contract Consequences don’t override rights and the claims they have on others. The Trolley Problem – Kill one person to save five? Consequentialists hold (1) wrongness derives from consequences and (2) badness aggregates. Is this ok? Does action vs. ommission make a difference?

Distributive Justice The term ‘distributive justice’ is not a neutral one… To think that the task of a theory of dis­tributive justice is to fill in the blank in "to each according to his ____" is to be predisposed to search for a pattern; and the separate treatment of “from each according to his ____” treats production and distribution as two separate and independent issues. It assumes that what matters for justice is the result—not how it got that way. There is no central distribution…In a free society, diverse persons con­trol different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and ac­tions of persons…. Things got that way as a result of people’s activities And the justice of holdings depends on what activities produced it

How Holdings are Acquired Principles of justice concern the means by which holdings are acquired. Original acquisition – how unheld things may come to be held – e.g. you claim otherwise unclaimed territory Transfer – voluntary exchange – gift – fraud By what processes may a person transfer holding to another? How may a person acquire a holding from another who holds it?

Justice for Holdings A distribution is just if the distributing entitles everyone to the holdings they possess under the distribution. Principles of Justice for Holdings: – A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding. – A person who acquires a holding in accord­ance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding. – No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2.

Rectification The existence of past injustice (previous violations of the first two principles of justice in holdings) raises the third major topic under justice in holdings: the rectification of injustice in holdings. If past injustice has shaped present holdings in various ways, some identifiable and some not, what now, if anything, ought to be done to rectify these injustices?... Questions: – Holding stolen property… – Compensation for members of ethnic groups, etc.? Is group rectification legit and, if so, why and how does it work?

Historical Principles and End-Result Principles The entitlement theory of justice in distribution is historical; whether a distribution is just depends upon how it came about. In contrast, current time-slice principles of justice hold that the justice of a distribution is determined by how things are distributed (who has what) as judged by some structural principle(s) of just distribution. Most persons do not accept current time-slice principles as constituting the whole story about distributive shares. Almost every suggested principle of dis­tributive justice is patterned: to each according to his moral merit, or needs, or mar­ginal product, or how hard he tries, or the weighted sum of the foregoing, and so on. The principle of entitlement we have sketched is not patterned. There is no one natural dimension or weighted sum or com­bination of a small number of natural di­mensions that yields the distributions gener­ated in accordance with the principle of entitlement.

How Liberty Upsets Patterns Each of these persons chose to give twenty-five cents of their money to Chamberlain. They could have spent it on going to the movies, or on candy bars, or on copies of Dissent magazine, or of Monthly Re­view. But they all, at least one million of them, converged on giving it to Wilt Cham­berlain in exchange for watching him play basketball. If Di was a just distribution, and people voluntarily moved from it to D2, transferring parts of their shares they were given under D1 (what was it for if not to do something with?), isn't D2 also just? [N]o end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with people's lives…To maintain a pattern one must either continually interfere to stop people from transferring resources as they wish to, or continually (or periodically) in­terfere to take from some persons resources that others for some reason chose to transfer to them....

Opportunity Costs

EMPIRICAL QUESTIONS Are markets perfection efficient? Are people good? Can a minimal state do a decent job?

Can a minimal state do a decent job? Nozick’s minimal state…does not impose taxation to finance its services…it is more like a business enterprise than a state. There are no rulers, no legislative body, no political elections, no contending parties and citizens…no sovereignty and no state territory. There are, instead, executives, a board of directors, shareholders, clients, and assets of the enterprise. Homeowners associations Kenya – If the state didn’t exist it would have to be invented

FREEDOM What is it and why should we want it?

What kind of freedom should we want? What is freedom for?

No-Vacation Nation Americans are more likely to be poor and have fewer opportunities to better themselves than citizens of most other affluent countries. In addition, the United States is the only advanced economy that does not guarantee its workers any paid vacation or holidays As a result, 1 in 4 U.S. workers do not receive any paid vacation or paid holidays. nation/. nation/

Paid leave in OECD countries Americans have less free time and less opportunity for advancement than their counterparts elsewhere in the Global North.

Occupational Segregation

The really rotten jobs most people do 3.5 million Americans were cashiers in “Most cashiers,” the BLS website notes, “work indoors, usually standing in booths or behind counters. Often, they are not allowed to leave their workstations without supervisory approval…The work of cashiers can be very repetitious.”

The rotten jobs most people do

The really rotten jobs most people do 2.2 million Americans were customer service representatives. Most worked in call or customer contact centers, in cubicles equipped with a telephone, headset and computer and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: “Call centers may be crowded and noisy, and work may be repetitious and stressful.” Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Men do rotten work too

Some slaves are better off Eumaeus the Swineherd, Odysseus’ slave, had it better than that.

Eumaeus had a good job. Eumaeus was more free than most American workers. He had to produce a result but he was not closely supervised and it was up to him how he produced that result. Minute by minute and hour by hour, Eumaeus could do as he pleased so long as the swine were fed and tended. He was not confined to a place. He could graze his pigs in this place or that— wherever the acorns and truffles were. His movements were not constrained. He could sit, stand or walk, and move about. He was not, in the course of his work, forced to do repetitious tasks and his mind was his own.

If ‘freedom’ means I spend my days trapped in a carrel or checkstand: TO HELL WITH ‘FREEDOM’!!!

Some Empirical Questions A RE MARKETS PERFECTLY EFFICIENT ? – Why are American CEOs paid so much more than Japanese CEOs—or American CEOs 50 years ago? A RE PEOPLE GOOD ? C AN THE M INIMAL S TATE DO A DECENT JOB ? – Nozick’s minimal state…does not impose taxation to finance its services…it is more like a business enterprise than a state. There are no rulers, no legislative body, no political elections, no contending parties and citizens…no sovereignty and no state territory. There are, instead, executives, a board of directors, shareholders, clients, and assets of the enterprise. Homeowners associations, Kenya

Utilitarianism-Rawls-Nozick Costs Benefits