Nozick and Inheritance

In today's class, we discussed Nozick's view of justice, which deals primarily with exchanges.  It encapsulates the main logic behind modern libertarianism (fiscally and socially).  For Nozick, "the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified.  Any state more extensive violates people's rights" (pg. 7 of Justice).

With no exchanges being interfered with by the government, Nozick examines the exchanges made between rational, free actors, and how those actors acquire their holdings.  His three principles of justice are:

1. The Acquisition Principle -- Persons are entitled to holdings initially acquired in a just way (as long as you have invested your labor or left enough good for everyone else).
2. The Transfer Principle -- Holdings that are freely acquired from others who acquire them in a just way are themselves justly acquired.
3. The Rectification Principle -- Violations of either of the above principles are rectified by restoring holdings to their rightful owners (or what Nozick calls a "one-time redistribution").

Now, Nozick believes that only free market exchanges treat people as ends in themselves.  Redistribution led by the government is naturally unjust because it violates his aforementioned principles.

The issue that we began to discuss at the end of class is the matter of inherited wealth.  For Nozick, the inheritance of wealth occurs justly, according to the transfer principle.  In many cases, this can be an unjust transfer, however.  How is it just that two children, relatively identical in most matters, will have vastly different opportunities open to them due to the material wealth of their parents?  Neither of these children has worked especially more or less for the opportunities or lack thereof given to them, so this is not a matter of equity.

Nozick defends this kind of inequality by categorizing it under the transfer principle.  But the child does not enter into a voluntary exchange with the parents during the process of inheritance.  Furthermore, this inheritance is not open to any free and rational actor in place of the child, as a just exchange is.  This is a biased and unjust exchange.

A case could be made for partial inheritance of wealth, wherein the child would inherit a portion of the parents' material wealth equal to about the subsistence level, as every person has a right to life.  And of course, there will be circumstances where a free and rational actor is incapable of working for a living; in those situations, inheritance would be justified.  In the current state of our society, however, I feel that inheritance often furthers unjust inequalities.