Give me liberty or give me equality was the subtitle of a popular magazine article from 1983[1] comparing John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Both are regarded as amongst the most highly influential and groundbreaking political philosophers of the twentieth century. Both have been studied, discussed and debated within government, politics and academia. However, it does seem an oversimplication to characterize them as divided between equality and liberty. Rawls work brought together two fundamental views of political philophy, that of libertarianism and egalitarianism, in which he tried to resolve the division between the two by meeting the libertarian demand of personal freedom and also to meet the egalalitarian need of equality through economic redistributive structures. Nozick was primarily a libertarian and was partially responsible from bringing many libertarian views into the mainstream of thought. Libertarians generally defend benefits of market competition, incompetence of state bureaucracies and the need for smaller government, all of which Nozick endorses, but his main defense of libertarianism is a moral one – that the strongest reason to advocate a libertarian society is simply a serious respect for individual rights and liberty. Thus, individual freedom, liberty and rights do form a common ground for both, however it does deviate from there. To understand this, we first look at Rawls work and then explore how Nozick may object.
Rawls developed a theory of the good as justice, which he calls Justice as Fairness, in which he describes an Original Positon, one that is not an actual historical state of affaris, but a hypothetical, primitive condition of culture, which will lead to an unbiased conception of principles of justice. The principles are chosen by individuals that operate under a ‘veil of ignorance, which he argues is necessary to find the basic principles of a society, in which individuals should know nothing about their own social class, personal talent or wealth.. From this, fair principles about how our society should be run are produced as such ignorance leads to us to be concerned for the equality of everyone. Individuals will choose a society that most concerned for those who are least fortunate because it could be possible that they could be the worst off along with them.
From the original position, Rawls states the two core principles of justice that he believes would be chosen. The first principle states that each person is to have an equal right to basic liberties, enumerated as the right to vote and run for public office, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of conscience, and the right to own property. These liberties should be available to the greatest degree as long as it is consistent with everyone having these freedoms equally. The second principle has two parts, the first being fair equality of opportunity, which requires that those with the same talents and willingness to use them have the same educational and economic opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or poor. The second part is the Difference Principle which requires that economic and social inequalities be arranged in such a way that they are of the greatest benefit to society’s least advantaged. Rawls does not state that equality is necessary for justice or does he deny the existence of inequalitites, but requires that there must be just inequalities only. An inequality is unjust except insofar as it is a necessary means to improving the position of the worst off and thus it has to be shown that the degree of inequality is necessary to achieve as high a level of w for the lowest group. This clearly implies the need of institutions which have the authority and responsibility for the distribution of weath, while not necessarily equal, but to everyones advantage. Rawls was noticeably distinct in that he suggested that social arrangements should be evaluated from the stand point of the worst-off position as opposed to utilitarians who were concerned about total or average welfare. Rawls also had little interest in details or nuance of property rights and did not consider anything natural about the ownership of property, which he believed was an effect not a natural starting point.
Nozick as well states several key principles. His first principle is that each individual is endowed with three fundamental rights: the right not to be physically injured, not to have his liberty limited, and not to have his property taken without his consent. He wrote extensively on the topic of propery holdings which he refers to as justice in holding and in his entitlement theory, he states that if the world was wholly just, then the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer and if each person’s holdings are just, then the total set is just. In this structure, Nozick argues that the state should thus be a minimal one and its purpose should be nothing more than to protect the rights, as stated above, of individual persons. Nozick advocates that individuals should make decisions of whether or not to help the least advantaged in society; the state should not to be responsible or impose an obligation to do so
While it seems that there is little discord between Nozick and Rawls on the right of liberties, the key objection by Nozick would be in the difference principle as he sees no place for the state or institutions to be involved with redistribution as a means of maintaining justice. Nozick would strongly claim that any state that forcibly uses taxes as a method of redistribution, thus taxing the rich for the benefit of the disadvantaged, would be violating the liberty of the rich. He would argue that governments had no right to infringe on the rights of individuals by taking their money and giving it to others. He would also conclude that redistributive taxation is morally illegitimate. Since individuals also own themselves, they have the right to determine whether and how to use their own bodies and powers. Taxation in his view amounts to a kind of forced labor or slavery as part of the wealth produced from individual labor is being taken away to provide benefits for other – thus implying that the system creates an unsanctioned partial ownership of an individual by others, which in inconsistent with principles of liberty.
Rawls would respond that redistribution under the difference principle would only be considered just insofar that it does not violate the paramount first principle of justice of fairness, one of basic liberties. Since these principles have to apply to all individuals, Rawls would argue that even if one believes that there is an impact on the liberties of the rich, the impact on the liberties of the less advantaged is far more pronounced. With lack of state redistribution vast economic differences between rich and poor will occur which themselves will result in a denial of liberty. The disadvantaged lose freedom of where to live, education, legal representation etc. and potentially due to multiple second order effects, the compromise of constitutional rights. Liberty is clearly inextricably attached to economic position and well being.
Nozick would probably argue that individual liberty will quickly upset the system of redistribution and will recreate an unequal distribution of goods. In that case the state would be required to continually interfere in the lives of people, and in so doing no justice is served.
In response, Rawls could demonstrate how the evolutionary cycles would result in a different outcome. Redsitribution is not limited to “Robin Hood” style taking from the rich and giving to the poor as Rawls does not propose a welfare state. Rather redistribution is to lift the disadvantaged in multiple ways as per the first part of the second principle, that of equality of opportunity. Successful use of redistributive wealth will create fairer and more equal opportunity for the disadvantaged, which will result in less inequality or disparity. As this cycle continues, the need for redistribution and thus taking from the rich should diminish.
Rawls may also state that in the Nozickian setup, there is a presupposition of a just world, however left to their own accord and to market forces only, individual liberty will not choose norms that are equally just as the wealthy or better placed will only be incentized to improve their individual position. While this will lead to inequality in wealth, which is not necessarily an issue for Rawls, it will also result in inequality of justice – thus the making Nozick assumption of a just world invalid. In other words, individual liberty depends on justice, but in itself will make individuals move to a bias of justice, thus destroying liberty itself.
Take the example of a transaction of property, a barter between two individuals, done willfully. Each holding was just in itself and the transaction would be considered just by Nozick. Thereafter an earthquake destroys one propertly, leaving the acquirer severely financially hurt. This would not bother Nozick. However a Rawlsian may question whether there was a equality of information (akin to education) and thus a level playing field when the transaction was done. If one party had information on the upcoming earthquake, it is not a just transaction. In a Rawls society, the state would be responsible for maintaining equal access to public information, as per the principle of fair equality of opportunity, in which case the transaction would be just. In a Nozick world, individuals and the markets are responsible, which have little incentive to make information ubiquitous.
The Rawlsian construct of justice and equality seems to hold in this debate. Alexis de Tocqueville neatly summarizes this in his classic Democracy in America[2] as he said “It is not that peoples with a democratic state naturally scorn freedom. On the contrary, they have an instinctive taste for it. But freedom is not the chief and continual object of their desires; it is equality for which they feel an eternal love; they rush on freedom with quick and sudden impulses but if they miss their mark they resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing will satisfy them without equality, and they would rather die than lose it.”
[1] Randal Rothenberg,, March 1983, Philosopher Robert Nozick vs. Philosopher John Rawls, Esquire Magazine,
[2] Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835, Democracy in America