Nozick's Principle Of Fairness Essay

Nozick's Counter-Argument to the Principle of Fairness In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick takes up a counter-argument against Herbert Hart's “principle of fairness”1 Nozick contends that the general framework of Hart's principle of fairness, is incoherent, because it produces special obligations that force others to behave as if they were obligated under a presupposition of a right, in general, not to be coerced. Nozick explains this as, On the face of it enforcing the principle of fairness is objectionable. You may not decide to give me something, for example a book, and then grab money from me to pay for it, even if I have nothing better to spend the money on.2 Prima facie, this counter-argument intuitively seems correct. As an example, consider the wearing of a remembrance poppy on Memorial and Veteran's Days. In the days prior to these “holidays,” there are always volunteers at the entrances and exits of nearly all commercial venues. The volunteers will sometimes approach the visitor and hand them a poppy; then, direct them to wear they can “contribute” monetarily to “whatever” organizations efforts to help pay for services required to improve the lives of veterans' and memorials

Someone first “gifts” you something then, turns around and expects you to pay for that gift under the guise of “donation.” Let me make this example explicitly clear. If you are an American Citizen, you already pay taxes to the government for the purpose of the nation's defense. If that nation is failing to provide required remembrance, and upkeep costs for those who defend it, then that is a problem. Requiring an American citizen to coercively “donate” again, under the auspices of a veiled sense of national pride, is a travesty. It is coercive, it is preying upon sympathy, and it is nothing short of