Nozicks Theory of Justice:
If people's current holdings are justly acquired, then the transfer principle alone determine whether subsequent distributions are just. The legitimacy of one's entitlement depends on the legitimacy of the entitlement of previous owners, and theirs on those previous to them, and so on.
Robert Nozick's book Anarchy, State and Utopia is a major event in contemporary political philosophy. Political philosophers have tended to assume without argument that justice demands an extensive redistribution of wealth in the direction of equality; and that it is a legitimate function of the state to bring about this redistribution by coercive means like progressive taxation. After Anarchy State and Utopia these assumptions need to be defended and argued for instead of being taken for granted. Anarchy, State, and Utopia falls into three sections. Part one tries to show that a minimal type of state- the "night watchman" state of classical liberal theory, limited to protecting its citizens against force and fraud, can arise legitimately, without violating any one's rights. In the second part Nozick argued that the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified and that any more extensive state does violate people's rights. The book ends with a section contending that the minimal state is, harsh appearances not withstanding, and an ideal worth fighting for.
According to Nozick people are entitled to their inherited assets whether or not they deserve them. As for natural talents, people do not violate any one else's rights by having the natural talents they are born with. An artist has the right to keep a painting done by him even if his artistic talent was inherited and he did nothing to deserve it.
If people's current holdings are justly acquired, then the transfer principle alone determine whether subsequent distributions are just. The legitimacy of one's entitlement depends on the legitimacy of the entitlement of previous owners, and theirs on those previous to them, and so on. Nozick argues that one has no obligation to help those worse off than himself. However Nozick has nothing against voluntary donations from rich to the poor.
Nozick's 'Theory of Justice in Distribution' advocates no re-distributive activity of the state and a reliance on private charity. Nozick's conception of a person is different from that of Rawls, who claims that people's talents do not belong to them. Nozick argues that if I own myself then I own my talents, and that if I own my talents I own the products of my self-owned talents. The notion of self-ownership has a reflexive significance. What owns and what is owned are one and the same, the whole person. That is why, as a self-owning person, I have absolute rights over my property. Re-distributive taxation from the talented to the disadvantaged accordingly violates self-ownership in two ways. The conditions under which the use of my talents and their products will lead to a just allocation of resources are specified by three principles of justice: the principle of initial acquisition, the principle of transfer, and the principle of rectification. First if we insist on the Rawlsian principle of justice- that the talented ones only benefit from their talents if this also benefits the disadvantaged (the difference principle) then this is according to Nozick, a failure to treat people as equals, since the disadvantaged have partial property rights in other people, and so it is a violation of the principle of treating other people as ends and not means. Second, self-ownership and property rights are necessary to enable an individual to pursue his conception of the good and his self- determined way of life.
By taking away his property we are decreasing his options and limiting his possibilities. This violates his freedom and is therefore morally unjustified.