John Rawls Vs Nozick

The concept of justice is debated between John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Through their respective works, this concept can share similarities and differences between each author. They have unique positions, and argue their positions effectively. This discussion will focus on their positions, and the contributions they add to the political thought. This will show the influence each has had in the formation of their political ideology. To begin, John Rawls’ concept of justice is looked at in terms of social justice. Rawls challenged the ideal of justice as equivalent to fairness. Instead, Rawls argued that we are in a social contract, behind a veil of ignorance, and this is the way to fairness. Rawls’ concept is discussed thoroughly in A Theory

Rawls forms his argument, to state that there are guiding forces behind government, which can bring everyone to fairness. Rawls writes, “these principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness” (Rawls 1370). This corresponds to society being in a state of nature, entering into a form of contract theory. Rawls’ argument holds that in nature, people hold that justice is the same as fairness. This idea runs counter to Irving Kristol’s concept in Capitalism, Socialism, and Nihilism. Kristol states, “let us leave aside the intellectual deficiencies of this conception of justice…ordinary people will see it merely as a self-serving ideology; they insist on a more metaphysical justification of social and economic inequalities” (Kristol 1387). Robert Nozick’s conception of this idea critiqued that of John Rawls’. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick contends for

Mills states, “The modern corporation is the prime source of wealth, but in latter-day capitalism, the political apparatus also opens and closes many avenues to wealth. The amount as well as the source of income, the power over consumer’s goods as well as over productive capital, are determined by position within the political economy” (Mills 1270). This selective group controls business, the flow of money, and to a greater extends the economy. This relationship between the government and the economy is little. This can create a situation in which people and business compete for wealth. R.G. Tugwell sees a different perspective on this idea in The Principle of Planning and the Institution of Laissez Faire. In Tugwell’s work, explains how the government needs an plan, and formulate a way to structure the economy. Tugwell states, “it would be certainly be one of the characteristics of any planned economy that the few who fare so well as things are now, would be required to give up nearly all the exclusive perquisites that they have come to consider theirs of right, and that these should be in some sense socialized” (Tugwell 1192). Tugwell is explaining that there needs to be a way to divide up the concentration of this powerful elite. Tugwell writes, “planning by definition the opposite of conflict; its meaning is aligned to co-ordination,