Nozick proposes a definition of justice surrounding liberty. An entitlement theory comprising of three principles which result in freedom to be absolutely entitled to property and the self. His argument maintains that patterned principles of just distribution depart from this historical scheme and, in doing so, involve unacceptable infringements of liberty. Nozick defends his entitlement theory with a Wilt Chamberlain illustration. Despite being a persuasive and strong argument, the difficult aspect of this is that Nozick does not clearly tell us how to properly satisfy what those three principles require under the perception that his argument could shut down his patterned theory competitors. There are three main principles of Nozick’s entitlement theory: justice in acquisition, which accounts how people come about to own things; justice in transfer, where whatever is justly acquired can be freely transferred as the owner has absolute property rights over it and thirdly, rectification of injustice, which is how to deal with property that has been unjustly acquired or transferred. An example of this is that if one owns a beach house, the …show more content…
Nozick ignores the commitment people may have to living in a particular society of and the power of the illustration of Wilt depends on that. ‘Nozick assumes that people willing to pay twenty-five cents to see him play would be willing to directly pay Wilt Chamberlain himself twenty-five cents to see him play’ (Cohen, 19: 25). One person might welcome a society of paying twenty five cents to see him play, but another might disfavour this fact if they knew they would be contributing to the $250000 Wilt will receive. ‘If people’s reasons for transferring goods to others are irrational or arbitrary it would be disturbing (Nozick: 159). If a citizen might join without thinking of the power it could give Wilt it is ‘disturbing’. A convention might evolve to not make this