Distributive Justice and Ownership Rights - Coursework Example

Distributive Justice and Ownership Rights The issue of distributive justice has sparked a lot of controversy within the public domain with many scholars investigation the possible implication of this statement. Nozick is among scholars who have found fault in the application of distributive justice within the society. In his note, he identifies the legal ways that a person may acquire property either by acquisition or by transfer. However, there is evidence there are many ways in which people may acquire property either by fraud or by redistribution. The role of liberty in ownership of properties is to give every person the right to use their own means to legally acquire what they desire. While some may be satisfied by mere basic needs, others may go an extra mile by working longer to acquire extra needs other than basic needs. The role that the government plays in regulating ownership is rather questionable. For instance, implementing taxation systems as one way of bridging the gap between those who have and the needy may be flawed. This is equivalent to forcing other people to work for the needy, which may be treated as unjust. From this perspective, distribution process is unjust and is oppressive to those people who work an extra mile in search for wealth. Nozick, in his entitlement theory, discusses the various ways that a person may be entitled to legal property (453). To begin with, one may legitimately own property by acquiring previously unheld properties. In such a process, one follows a legal process to ensure that they can own that property. Secondly, a person may acquire a property that was previously held by another through a transfer process. The transfer process implies that the property exchanges hands from one person to another. A good example is when a person sells their land to another person through a legal process. In this case, the person pays for this land or is given without exchange of any material property. For instance, when a person inherits land from their parents may not pay anything but the transfer process can be initiated. However, Nozick notes that there are many illegal ways that a person can acquire a property including fraud or stealing. However, the distributive justice seems to fail in controlling the illegal acquisition of justice. While the rectification of injustice helps to correct cases of injustice in ownership, it lacks the essential thoroughness that a just distribution should encompass. The historical and current time distribution principles depict the flawed nature of the distributive justice. The historical distribution principles are concerned with the way that possession if acquired, whether legal or illegal. Distribution is fare only if the person who owns property acquired it legally either by acquisition, transfer, or rectification of injustice. On the other hand, the current time-slice principles consider distribution fair depending on “who owns what” (455). Therefore, the latter principle is concerned with the end results rather than the initial conditions of property acquisition. As Nozick points out, such non-historical principles of distribution are unacceptable since they ignore the legitimate process of acquiring property. However, the distributive justice is based on the current-time principles and seeks to create equality in ownership by ensuring that there is no gap in ownership. Apparently, this is the principle that many countries are adopting to ensure that there is no wage gap. They seem to concur with the notion that unequal distribution in property is illegal without digging to history of ownership. While distributive justice seeks to create a more equal society, it uses an unjust approach to redistribute resources to people who legitimately do not deserve such property. Therefore, the distributive justice is flawed and an error in its implementation may defy the principles of legal property acquisition. Besides, the implementation of distributive justice is questionable and raises questions on its fairness. One of the ways that the government has applied distributive justice is by implementing a taxation system that targets those who have more. Nozick refers to the redistribution theories and takes note of the efforts of the government to share properties equally and to compel equal ownership (458). According to patterned principles, a person has the freedom to use their personal properties the way they wish without being compelled by any person. However, the redistribution principles seek to force people to extend love and care by sharing properties equally or spending together. Nozick notes that there are two different types of people; those who work for basic needs only and those who sacrifice to find beyond the basic needs. The taxation system seeks to oppress those who work hard by taxing them more than those who work less hours since they do not pursue extra needs. The government uses such tax systems to redistribute wealth by using revenue from rich people to assist the needy who do not intend to work hard. Therefore, the redistribution process discourages hard work by discouraging those who work harder and rewarding those who fail to work beyond their basic needs. From this dimension, it is clear that distributive justice is an unfair system that ignores people’s commitment to own property through legitimate processes. In conclusion, the distributive justice is a flawed process that is ignorant of legal property ownership and seeks to reinstate balance in social society. According to historical principles, people have the right to own property as long as they acquire such property through legitimate means. Secondly, such people have the right to use their personal property in a liberal manner since they own such property legally. They can decide to use it for themselves or for others but on their own personal choice. However, distributive justice ignores legal ownership of property and seeks to compel the public to share legally owned property, a process that defies their liberty. For instance, a taxation system forces those who work hard to acquire wealth to assist those who fail to work hard as a way of avoiding the tax system. From a critical perspective, while the tax system helps to support the needy and restore a balance within the society, it is clear that it is oppressive and fails to acknowledge person efforts that people put to acquire property. For instance, some people work extra hours to increase their income while some work short hours to earn the basic needs. From this perspective, distributive justice is subject to error and fails to motivate hard work as the legitimate way to acquire property. Works Cited Nozick, Robert. "Distributive justice." Philosophy & Public Affairs (1973): 45-126. Read More