Starting from a perfectly equal distribution D1, a million people each voluntarily pay a small fee to watch Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. The result, D2, is highly unequal — Chamberlain has far more than anyone else. According to Nozick's entitlement theory, D2 is:
AUnjust, because it violates the requirement that distributions satisfy a pattern of equality
BJust, because each transaction was voluntary and just steps from a just starting point produce a just result
CUnjust, because Chamberlain's holdings exceed what the Lockean proviso permits
DNeither just nor unjust — only the initial distribution D1 can be evaluated for justice
This is the point of the Wilt Chamberlain argument. Nozick's entitlement theory says justice is entirely historical: if D1 is just and every transaction producing D2 was voluntary, then D2 is just regardless of its resulting shape. The fact that D2 is unequal is irrelevant — what matters is how it came about. The deeper target is patterned theories: if you think D2 is unjust simply because it's unequal, you must continuously interfere with the voluntary transactions that produced it, treating people's holdings as permanently subject to revision.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
According to Nozick's entitlement theory, which of the following distributions is unjust?
AA distribution where the richest person has 1000 times more than the poorest, if all holdings arose through just acquisition and voluntary transfer
BA distribution where everyone has equal wealth, but some of those holdings were originally acquired through theft
CA distribution that satisfies the difference principle, as long as it arose through voluntary transactions
DAny distribution that Rawls's original position would not choose
On entitlement theory, a distribution is just if and only if it arose through a chain of just acquisitions and just transfers. Inequality is never itself a problem — option A describes a fully legitimate distribution. Option B is unjust because theft violates the principle of just acquisition, regardless of the resulting pattern: even if the outcome looks equal, its history is tainted. Entitlement theory is purely procedural and historical — it says nothing about the shape of the outcome, only about how it came to be.
Question 3 True / False
Nozick's libertarianism holds that the state should not interfere with personal choices (such as recreational drug use or consensual sexual practices) for the same fundamental reason it opposes economic redistribution: both violate individual self-ownership.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is an important distinction between libertarianism and conservatism. Libertarianism applies self-ownership consistently: because you own yourself and your body, the state has no authority to restrict what you do with yourself as long as you don't violate others' rights. This applies to lifestyle choices and personal relationships just as much as to economic decisions. Conservatism often accepts state interference in personal matters while resisting economic regulation — a position libertarians regard as inconsistent with the self-ownership premise.
Question 4 True / False
Nozick's political libertarianism is a form of anarchism that rejects most state authority as illegitimate.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Nozick explicitly argues for a minimal 'night-watchman' state — not anarchism. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia he argues at length that a minimal state can arise legitimately from a state of nature without violating anyone's rights, through the 'dominant protection association' argument. What Nozick rejects is not the state as such, but any state that goes beyond protecting rights to provide welfare, education, redistribution, or other services that require taxing non-consenting individuals. The difference from anarchism is that libertarianism accepts a minimal protective state as legitimate.
Question 5 Short Answer
Explain the target of Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument. What does it show about patterned theories of distributive justice?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The argument shows that any patterned distribution — one specifying what an acceptable distribution must look like (equal, maximizing the minimum, etc.) — is inherently unstable in the face of voluntary exchanges. Starting from any distribution that satisfies your preferred pattern, free transactions will disrupt it. To restore the pattern you must interfere with those transactions — preventing or undoing voluntary choices people made about their own legitimate holdings. The argument concludes that holding a patterned theory consistently requires endorsing continuous violations of liberty.
The deeper point is about the relationship between process and outcome in justice. Patterned theorists look at snapshots — who has what now — and judge distributions accordingly. Nozick says this ignores how distributions come about. If you care only about the pattern, you will be forced to treat people's holdings as perpetually revisable, which undermines the very property rights that libertarianism takes as foundational. Entitlement theory says justice is about history, not pattern: a just distribution is whatever arises from just steps.