The following paper analyzes an evergreen debate over the differences between Libertarian ism and Social Liberalism. Two different persons devised both theories; Robert Nozick presents the idea of libertarian ism and highlights the concepts of state, anarchy, and utopia. On the other hand, John Rawls develops the political philosophy of justice. In the following are presented their ideas with a brief evaluation of implications and positive or negative aspects of theories.
STRUCTURES OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES
John Rawls through his theory of justice emphasizes on two underlying principles which can be comprehended in the form of equations.
- Liberty principle= equal fundamental liberties of people: this rule implies the maximization of freedom of conscience, speech, voting power and religious beliefs.
- Difference principle= least advantaged: differences are only accepted when such disparities are implemented to cater the needs of the least advantaged populace of the community.
Throughout the social contract tradition, Rawls attempts to make a point regarding equilibrium which meets a similar attribute of the civil system and can be defined as “justice as fairness.” For this purpose, he develops an argument according to which people in their original or natural state design legislative laws from behind a veil of ignorance. Rawls posits the rationale of the veil of ignorance that people without acknowledging their status in community establish the economic and social conditions. And sheltered the poor and fed the hungry because they have a prospect to become one of them. (Wilkerson, 2011)
On the other hand, Robert Nozick’s famous “Anarchy, state, and utopia” perspective refutes the thesis of Rawls and asserts that only a minimal state can cater the unique needs of protection and enforcement of people in a morally and ethically right way. According to Nozick, the underlying question of political philosophy is hidden within that “whether there should be a state at all” instead of how governmental authority should be managed. He supports the existence of government only in a particular situation where it offers security and protection to a state of nature regarding freedom, properties, and lives.
EVIDENCE OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES IN MODERN SOCIETY
No philosophy can be implemented to a society intact, but a fragment of different and variant theories are evident even in modern society. Rawls’ veil of ignorance does exist in the society and makes its appearance as a fear of drafting wills, and to undertake power as healthcare attorney including insurance policies and other legal and estate documentation which remind people about their vague lives. (Lloyd, 2017) The rule of the veil of ignorance also implies to the voting out politicians who utilize rhetorical devices which are entirely contradictory with the framework of fairness. Similarly, the Robert’s Nozick philosophy is incorporated in modern society through the notion of unfair distribution of wealth; riches and getting richer and poor are going nowhere, and this entire phenomenon is legitimate because no one can take any substantial step to reform this fact. (Singer, 1975)
Evidently, John Rawls is a renowned philosopher and has an outstanding status in among esteemed theorists. He affirms that every individual is supposed to observe their state as that of ignorance. The comprehension regarding veil of ignorance provokes them to explore the mechanism of life in a better manner. Through his political philosophy, he endeavors to equip everyone to unearth their fundamental societal principles. According to Rawls his theory of libertarianism helps people to start from scratch. In turn, this commencement from the very beginning will assist to create fair and significant principles which will benefit the overall society and every individual to a great extent.
Rawls philosophy elaborates the aspects of equality and to maintain the quality of disparity. On the contrary, Nozick believes that poverty is inevitable and therefore should not be considered as a blunder because it comes to those who deserve it. Nozick stresses that scarcity and joblessness should be justified consequences of succession and inheritance meanwhile the other possibility may be the hard work and unmatched talent. He also posits that unsuccessful standards of wealth distributions are in benefit of wealthy people and allows them absolute freedom to opt their lifestyle, contrarily poor people are deservedly deprived of this luxury. In the light of analyses, it could be said that John Rawls theory is better as compared to Robert Nozick because it has a potential for incorporating betterment within the tapestry of society and political system.
Work Cited
Singer, Peter. “The Right to Be Rich or Poor.” The New York Review of Books, 1975,
www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/03/06/the-right-to-be-rich-or-poor/.
Lloyd, Harold. “Beyond Rawls’ Fiction: The Veil of Ignorance Is Real.” The Huffington Post,
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-lloyd/beyond-
Rawls-fiction-the_b_9365888.html.
Wilkerson, John. Rawls and Nozick on Fairness by John Wilkerson. 2011.
http://faculty.washington.edu/jwilker/353/RawlsNozick.pdf
