Talk:Entitlement Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Appropriate Example?

Taxation of the rich to support social programs for the poor are unjust
because the state is acquiring money by taking it instead of through a 
voluntary transaction.

Is this a good example? Democracies are at least notionally representing their populations, and the acts of democracies are, at least notionally, collective choices. One might argue against this interpretation but, generally speaking, I don't think this is a good example. How about talking about crime instead? 62.25.106.209 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is actually a good example of Nozick's belief, but it may require more context to make sense. Nozick believes that the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified, and so he would say that any taxation is bad, because it violates people's rights. Under Entitlement Theory the only way to lessen your holdings is to trade them with somebody else or voluntarily give them away. Since taxes are neither of these (the government takes your money by force) I believe Nozick would say they're unjust. Does that make sense? Perhaps this roundabout explanation can be worked into the article. If you have a better example using crime, though, feel free to use that. --Culix (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up definition

I'm removing this sentence because I don't think it's accurate: [Entitlement Theory involves] "Nozick's ideas of who is entitled to what, according to their class and needs, plus other factors". This doesn't make sense: Entitlement Theory specifically talks about people being entitled to things because they happened to start with them, according to the principle of justice in acquisition. Nozick talks about how it can be arbitrary who starts with what holdings, and while I agree that the societal class you are born into would have an effect on the holdings you start with, Entitlement Theory doesn't say anything to the effect that certain classes are entitled to things simply because they are that class, or anyone being entitled to holdings because of their needs. It's more like the opposite. Entitlement Theory says that people are entitled to what they start with and can justly acquire, regardless of whether anyone needs those holdings more. --Culix (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)