Nozick Case

In the article, “Switzerland’s Proposal to Pay People for Being Alive,” New York Times columnist, Annie Lowrey describes how of recent, activists in Switzerland have triggered a public referendum calling for a monthly minimum income of roughly $2,500 per month. Such a dramatic economic policy would have profound consequences both domestically and internationally. Additionally, questions of such a policy’s practical in larger, less wealthy countries could be debated. However, we can perhaps achieve a greater understanding of the issue by examining it through the political philosophies of John Rawls and Robert Nozick, and reach a consensus on whose evaluation of Switzerland’s proposed law is more persuasive. From there, it will become evident

Nozick believes the government should refrain itself from interference in its citizens’ lives aside from protection of basic rights. As stated earlier, Switzerland’s proposal would fund itself through supplemental taxation. Nozick would undoubtedly object to this sort of government intervention under his proposed ultra-minimalist state. Another reason Nozick would object to Switzerland’s implementation of such a law is his denial of social good. Stated in the article are generally good repercussions from the aforementioned pilot program, which Nozick would merely recognize as one person using another (poor using money from a tax on wealthy), not a contribution toward social good and equality. Furthermore, Nozick would object to Switzerland’s minimum income referendum on the premise that it is an unjust transfer. According to Nozick’s entitlement theory, to be just, a holding (individuals’ money) must either stem from a just original acquisition, stem from an act of just original acquisition followed by just transfer, or stem from a just rectification counteracting an unjust taking or just holding. According to Nozick, Switzerland’s proposed minimum income referendum satisfies none of these requisites. Initial acquisition comes from varying inheritances, which are inherently unjust. Therefore, it is imperative to examine Switzerland’s proposal from Nozick’s third principle. The government’s imposition of a tax to sustain the monthly income distribution would be unjust, because it would subject citizens to the force of the state as opposed to voluntary transaction. Nozick’s argument against Switzerland’s referendum must be qualified as to say he is not advocating the elimination of social welfare programs; however, one the magnitude of what Switzerland is proposing would threaten ideals underscoring his libertarian