Nozick Vs Rawl

“You didn’t build that.” This phrase from Barack Obama’s 2012 speech ignited a debate on workmanship and alludes to the problem of what people are entitled to, under what circumstances, and whether they can claim the “fruits of their labor.” In this essay, I will discuss three prolific philosophers- John Locke, Johnathon Rawls, and Robert Nozick- and their principles in regard to the issue of whether one can compellingly say that because one did not “build” something, they are not completely entitled to its ownership. Among Rawls’s theories on distributive justice, Locke’s divine take on workmanship, and Nozick’s assertions that unequal distributions are legitimate (Wilt Chamberlain example), I will demonstrate that it is Nozick’s account whose is most compelling as his philosophies appear to have the most promise in generating fairness and stability though convincing logic appealing to mainly the political rather than the metaphysical explanations and justifications. In turn, this waving hand of Nozick’s waves to those in government debating broad, key issues such as welfare, or specific ones such

Since an accumulator could use money or any other form of an intermediary method of exchange with no expiration date, they are able to accumulate large amounts of indefinitely-lasting resources while simultaneously impeding on other people’s opportunity to experience upward growth and accumulation in resource wealth, including money, with seemingly no limits. As long as his other requirements are still met, a Lockean society which experiences a heavily lopsided distribution of resource wealth is still completely legitimate. Sellers of surplus accumulate wealth and the consumers may still experience life, liberty, health, or possessions, but at a much lower level with little opportunity of moving up in the socioeconomic