Poverty and wealth inequality have been concerning society for a very long time. The latter has sparked a debate regarding justice and wealth inequality. In the section How Liberty Upsets Patterns, Robert Nozick depicts how a person can benefit from the distribution of the second party. However, I will explain why I think that Nozick’s perspective lacks certain factors in his example. In my opinion, the soccer player mentioned in it is not as fortunate as one may think. I will review Robert’s points regarding the preservation of the two principles. Finally, I intend to explain why I agree with his final opinions and why some of them require extra details.
The first factor related to the situation depicted in that chapter is that the soccer player, in case of a million people attending the season will have 250 000 USD. This sum is larger than the average income in the country and larger than the salaries the attendees have (Nozick, 2013). Nozick debates whether this distribution is fair and whether he has the right to have so much money.
The second one depicted by the philosopher is that while the player obtains more money than the average visitor of his sporting events, they pay for the tickets deliberately. The guests want to see him play, and they want to witness the sportsperson doing his best (Nozick, 2013). Nobody was forcing the people to spend their money on the tickets, this decision was consensual. This is why Robert thinks that it is hard to refer to such a distribution as unfair.
The third factor states that the attendees could have spent their money on another activity. They could have paid for a subscription to a newspaper, a ticket to a foreign country or a collectible item. But, as Nozick repeatedly mentions, the guests decided to spend their money (Nozick, 2013). Robert wonders if the alternative scenario (D2) would have been just as fair, as the case in which the people paying for the tickets were a distribution (D1). The philosopher wonders if the visitors of the game were just as entitled to exchange part of their share with Chamberlain and if anyone could call it unjust.
Nonetheless, he acknowledges that regardless of the guests’ decision, the third party still would have financially benefitted from it. Robert states that no one has any claims of justice against the depicted scenario (Nozick, 2013). In spite of all three sides consenting to the given event, the philosopher wonders if there could have been a process that would have lead to a valid claim of distributive justice. However, the third party would have had no such claim regarding the holding of others before the transfer.
To explain his example and conclude the chapter, Robert states that a principle of justice or a no end-state principle cannot become a reality without interference into people’s lives. Said principle would have rendered any desirable pattern as an undesirable one, with people performing various actions, such as paying for specific goods (Nozick, 2013). To preserve the principle, one needs to either prevent such transfers or interfere with the process to receive a part of the share.
I agree with most of the points the philosopher has made, so I would like to provide explanations. In my opinion, I believe that the wealth inequality mentioned in this scenario is a very complicated issue that requires a detailed review. However, the opinions depicted regarding the visitors’ consent to paying for the tickets to see Chamberlain play are valid (Nozick, 2013). I also intend on reviewing the role the third party may play in this situation.
I have chosen to debate this specific issue, for I find the conflict between one’s consent, financial transactions, wealth inequality and the benefit of the third party to be quite interesting. As mentioned earlier, the first two sides do not have any complaints regarding the situation (Nozick, 2013). However, it is debatable whether the third party can address this event as a negative issue or not.
In my opinion, the problem of the wealth inequality depicted in this scenario (the probability of Chamberlain earning 250 000 USD if one million visitors attend the soccer season) is even more complex than Nozick believes. There are some factors that he has not mentioned in his imaginary scenario. They could have provided more details and insight on the role of all three parties and distributive justice in this situation.
First of all, what Robert failed to mention is that, in this scenario, Chamberlain’s earnings are rather unstable and depend almost entirely on the guests’ attendance. In case of a financial crisis or downfall in the country, people will not be able to attend soccer games and will spend money on more important things. Thus, he will not receive the aforementioned 250 000 USD in such a situation.
Second, the depicted situation implies that the guests are in a more stable financial position than Chamberlain. They may be working in jobs that have a fixed salary, which puts them in a safer scenario. The soccer player, as depicted earlier, is constricted by the 25 cents he earns from each ticket bought by the attendees.In conclusion, Chamberlain is not as fortunate as he may seem at first glance.
Third, being a soccer player is a very short term job. Chamberlain will eventually have to retire. This will force him to look for a new job and put him in a financially fragile position. Chamberlain’s future will then depend on his qualifications that are not related to sports. If he does not have any higher education in such fields, he will experience quite severe struggles.
However, the role played by the third party is also very unusual. Regardless of the outcome, their financial situation does not change at all. I believe that Robert was not specific enough in his depiction of the third party’s financial situation, because he focused onthe other two parties (Nozick, 2013). It is not stated if their earnings are average or not. Nonetheless, the third party happens to be the only group that can address a complaint of distributive justice, thus, they have more legal options in this situation.
I agree with Robert’s statement on the visitors not having to file a complaint of distributive justice. As mentioned earlier, their decision to pay for the tickets is consensual (Nozick, 2013). The only scenario when they can express their negative opinion about the transfer is if they are not informed about the expenses included and if the event gets cancelled, without the organizer returning the money. Nozick’s depiction implies that the attendees are either aware of it or have neutral sentiments regarding this situation.
It is hard to say whether the outcomes of an alternative transfer would be positive or negative (the visitors deciding to spend their money on another activity) for two reasons. First, they are not the focus of the event being depicted (Nozick, 2013). It is less significant to the research, although it does provide extra context. Second, it is assumed that the people will most likely pay for the tickets to see Chamberlain’s soccer event. This is why I find the briefly mentioned alternative scenario to be simultaneously relevant and irrelevant.
By the end of the section, Nozick states that neither of the two principles (no end-state and distributional patterned principle of justice) can become a reality without interfering in people’s lives. In my opinion, the reason why the favored patterns may easily become unfavored is because the position of two of the three sides is rather fragile in this situation. In a way, the soccer player and the guests depend on each other, thus contributing to the complicated nature of the issue. This proves Robert’s final point: to preserve a pattern, one must either prevent the transferring of the resources or interfere by taking a part of said resources.
In conclusion, I find the topic of distributive justice to be rather complicated in Robert’s chapter on Anarchy, State and Utopia. Although Chamberlain seems to be financially fortunate, this position is very fragile and depends on the attendance of the event and his age at the moment. Given the philosopher’s depictions, I think that the guests are most likely satisfied with the outcome of the transfer or have a neutral opinion. While the third party has the opportunity to file a complaint about distributive justice after the transfer, there are not enough details in the example. This, in turn, is why I think that the role of third parties should be researched more thoroughly.
Reference
Nozick, R. (2013). Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books, pp (609-615).