lol i hate this man

 Reading Nozick was a very interesting exposure to Liberalism. My takeaway from it was that Nozick thinks that the state has no obligation to owe us anything except the ability to secure our ends and means. In his account, he presupposes that everyone has equal capacity to secure their means and protect their ends. His account of property relies on a form of procedural justice that is very similar to what Rawls describes. He has interesting considerations about property and the way property can be allocated and how the market can work to serve our ends.

               I think Nozick misses a lot of very important facts about how society works, especially in the way discrimination and prejudice can affect the capacity we have to secure our ends in society. Nozick effectually utilizes and colorblind and classless approach to analyze society. Nozick assumes that people “chose to work” or “chose not to work.” He thinks that this choice is what causes some people to have more material objects than others. I find this train of thought to be incredibly naive about class conditions and discrimination. Low-income people on average work way more hours than high-income people. The reason why they lack material objects is usually because A) they are paid terrible wages and B) they lack the generation wealth to give them a head start. Also, if there ever is a chance when people chose not to work it's usually because of disability, mental health issues or they are literally rich enough they can actually choose not to work because they have more than enough income and/or passive income to maintain a lavish lifestyle. Also, a lot of people do want to work, but because of arbitrary qualifications and education requirements in many cases, they can’t. Especially in societies that Nozick describes where the government only protects rights and probably wouldn’t provide a public education option, how would people even get educated to work (also even in today’s society it’s so hard for people without a college degree to be educated in the skills needed to get a high-paying job)?

               Nozick also assumes that a system where people’s private decisions determine allocations of property, would be more just than a system than where the government does so because people would be able to own their labor and as a result have an incentive to work for the betterment of themselves and society. He thinks taxes on labor are bad because taxes are basically people being forced to work for the government.

               It seems to me that basically all of his views are predicated on this idea that the state owes as nothing which means that we owe nothing to the state. He does not realize that people pay taxes because the public roads they use, the public system which educated them (and their coworkers/employees), and basically any public resource they will eventually utilize benefits them every day in their daily life. That is why they should pay for those services to then ensure said services can be provided to people in the first place. A state is required for collective action and to protect marginalized people who (as history proves) CAN AND WILL BE EXPLOITED when people are free to act without any restriction. They would refuse to sell goods to certain people, provide shoddy services, and a lot of the benefits and entitlements that Nozick thinks should be privately provided instead of federally would not be given to marginalized people. In cases where people will be exploited or treated unfairly due to the bias of private individuals the state also has to exist said people, and Rawls just completely ignores this fact of life. Rawls completely ignores the way generational wealth means that people will never be able to have equal capacity to secure their means so that's why redistribution is necessary because even in the conditions he outlines, it isn't possible without redistribution. 

    Rawl's definition of egalitarian also seems to misinterpret the actual concept. He assumes egalitarian society means an equal distribution of property but in reality, it is equal distribution of opportunity. That is also what the aim of redistribution is - giving money so people can equally pursue their projects and not be disadvantaged by being of a marginalized identity or not having generational wealth. 

               I’m not saying that government can never be oppressive because we all know it certainly can be. But in democratic societies at least external will can affect the way the government acts and there are legitimate and illegitimate mechanisms to change its behavior. It is way more difficult to do that with corporations and private individuals.

 TLDR – Nozick basically thinks the state owes people nothing so people owe the state nothing and that’s literally because he uses a raceless and classless approach. Also, every annoying devil's advocate person in CMC politics classes is this dude's child.