The document compares the philosophies of libertarianism and liberalism on the topic of equality. It argues that Robert Nozick's libertarian view results in vast inequality, as it fails to account for the effects of inheritance, problems with capitalism like natural monopolies, and other factors outside an individual's control. In contrast, John Rawls' liberal view aims to create a level playing field and equal opportunities for all regardless of their birth or life circumstances. The document concludes that Rawls' philosophy achieves greater equality in society.

1. Equality
Under Liberalism and Libertarian Philosophies
By: Mitchell Peerless

2. 1
Both Robert Nozick’s libertarian and John Rawls’ liberal philosophies claim
to bring about the most equal society, but they are radically different from one
another. This raises the question, “which philosophy results in the most equality?”
Rawls’ liberal philosophy results in the most equality. Nozick’s libertarianism has
severe flaws even if everything he says is taken for granted. Libertarianism actually
results in vast inequality because Nozick seems to discount the result of inheritance
on individuals in society. In addition to this weakness, Nozick’s libertarianism fails
to account for the inherent problems with capitalism. These issues can seriously
damage equality because they require regulation. Finally numerous positions, upon
which his theory seems to be based, are either unsupported, or claims that don’t
take into account the reality of living in a society. He takes an ideological stand on
issues such as partial slavery to the state (taxes), but forgets about wage slavery,
insisting that since the person has the option to not work, it’s a free choice. This is a
choice similar to the choice one has when someone puts a gun to your head and tells
you to give them your money. In contrast, Rawls’ liberal philosophy is essentially
based on the notion that everyone is at least partly self interested, and that the only
way for equality to occur is to ensure people do not base their decisions about the
state on those self-interests. Rawls’ view of equality is about ensuring that everyone
can pursue their goals, no matter where they are in life. Treating people as equals
means ensuring they aren’t hindered by the many curve balls life throws at us, not
by letting some people rule over their fellow man thanks to random chance. Rawls’
liberalism is also about creating a level playing field so that everyone has the
opportunity to succeed, despite the randomness of birth. Nozick does not seem to

3. 2
take this randomness into account, and so his version of equality fails before it even
begins.
Nozick’s idea of equality is based on pure freedom of the individual coming
from merit. If you’re a great basketball player then you might be able to make a lot
of money doing that, if other people want to pay you. If you’re a great businessman
then you might be able to get a lot of money that way if you can convince people to
pay for the things you manage (Nozick, p. 4). Nozick believes all of this wealth to be
earned solely by the individual, and therefore taking away that money is immoral. Of
course this fails to take into account the fact that human beings aren’t born and
don’t live without other human beings. Human beings have parents, for whose
choices they can not be held responsible, which results in a very unequal starting
point. The random chances involving birth, including geographical, political,
physical, intellectual and socioeconomic ensure inequality as a starting point, and
Nozick’s philosophy does not take any of this into account. If a parent cannot afford
to send a child to school (because without a robust state, as Nozick believes there
shouldn’t be, there is no public education) then that child will not recive an
adequate education, assuming Nozick does not approve of child labour. The result of
a small state is inequality for those not born into wealth. Children born into poverty
will also be denied dental care, and medical care. They will likely be short of food.
Poor children can’t use roads, because in Nozick’s state roads would be privately
owned, and there is no public transportation, so they would lack mobility. From the
point of view of equality, even given the belief that we should all keep what we make
based on the merit and utility of our actions, equality cannot stem from a place that

4. 3
those born into poverty have chosen or otherwise deserve such poverty due to a
lack of hard work on their part. Indeed in any society we rely on others to succeed,
not just our parents. Nozick doesn’t discount this, but suggests that all people should
be able to make fair exchanges they agree upon, like how much they are paid, or
how much a product costs (Nozick, pp. 4-5). Of course in order to bargain fairly and
make a deal both parties can agree upon, they need to have an equal place at the
table, and the table needs to be level. That would not happen very often in Nozick’s
world. One party would almost always have the upper hand, for example the
pharmaceutical company would be able to charge whatever it wanted for a critical
treatment, because people would need that treatment to live. Nozick would not wish
there to be any tax paid or societal-level assistance given to help a poor person who
needed that treatment. Nozick probably doesn’t think about the consequence of his
theory in action. He seems focused on equality in a very pedantic way. For example
his mode of acquiring just holdings:
“1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle
of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle
of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is
entitled to the holding.
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of
1 and 2.” (Nozick, p. 2)
This analysis may be fair, but it critically fails to take into account the result
of such a stark definition of equality on those born into poverty. It’s almost as if his

5. 4
conception is based upon a world with no inheritance, and no inequalities between
people (where one needs something from another). Nozick’s world seems to
envision a “blank slate” where everyone starts with nothing and then goes and
makes their own future without anyone else although at the same time as everyone
else. While such a world may be idyllic, it could never happen.
Nozick’s conception of libertarian equality is also founded upon a fallacious
and naive belief in capitalism. When allowed to run free a capitalist system will itself
generate inequality. There is a significant problem with natural monopolies in any
capitalist system. Natural monopolies arise when there is a distinct advantage in
having only one supplier in an industry. These industries require large amounts of
capital to start, and usually involve large amounts of infrastructure, which is useless
to anyone other industry. Examples include railways, natural gas lines, drugs from
drug companies, or in some cases telecommunication providers. The problem with
these natural monopolies is that those providers can pretty much charge anything
for their services, and no one can do anything about it. This means that the people
who inherit, or build the first natural monopoly of that kind, get rich, and can suck
money from those who require the service nearly in perpetuity. Others can’t get into
these natural monopolies because they lack the resources to compete with already
established businesses. Being forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money for
something one needs, like electricity, or natural gas, or transportation is not equality
but is nearly the definition of inequality. Nozick might come back and say that using
these services is demonstrative of equality, it is a free choice after all, but I find that
argument to be absurd. It isn’t treating those who need to use the natural

6. 5
monopolies as equals, it is saying that they should have built the gas lines or the
railway when in fact those things were probably built (at least in part) before they
were even born, or were built by people who were born to or otherwise
accumulated the necessary capital before they themselves had any opportunity. We
wouldn’t say that using coercive force to make someone do something is a free
choice, but that is basically what a drug company could do in a situation where a
person’s life hangs in the balance. The only difference is that in Nozick’s world the
drug company’s coercion would be legal and actually appropriate. Equality,
however, requires everyone to have the same opportunities and the same
bargaining power. Anyone under Nozick’s system is not being given the same
opportunities, and is being told it’s their fault for not working hard enough for those
opportunities, when in fact the opportunities have always been out of their grasp.
Nozick suggests that a society which taxes people is forcing people to work
for society because it takes some of their money and thus some of their time from
them. This, to Nozick, is equivalent to forcing them to work for the state (Nozick, p.
6). This is simply not true. Taxes are the payment for being allowed to take
advantage of the opportunities delivered by the rest of society. Taxes permit citizens
to utilize roads, bridges, tunnels, firefighters, police, and the military, and provide
assistance to those less fortunate. Like all goods or services you buy or use, you
must pay for them in some way. If you lived outside of society, and didn’t use money,
and didn’t have an income you wouldn’t have to pay for all of the things society uses
and needs. It’s not forcing people to work, it’s the price of working within a society

7. 6
with law and order, public services that help people in need, and education for
children who have no control over their position of birth.
Nozick does not like redistribution, and he suggests that, “we are not in the
position of children who have been given portions of pie by someone who now
makes last minute adjustments to rectify careless cutting.” (Nozick, p. 1) I argue
that to the contrary, of course we are in exactly that position. We are born into
unequal amounts of capital and property, which our parents can utilize to help us
succeed. The more capital and property we have to begin with, the more chances
we have for ultimate success. Redistribution is supposed to alleviate some of that
huge disparity.
John Rawls’ liberalism as described in his work “A Theory of Justice” posits a
society that is grounded on equality. His idea is to create social institutions that will
result in a society as equal as possible. How could this be achieved? Through a
combination of utilitarianism and intuitionist philosophies, where the goal is to
maximize utility while ensuring no one is taken advantage of (Rawls, p. 11). Rawls
proposes to make this happen by utilizing the self-interest of all agents with his
theories of “Original Position” and “The Veil of Ignorance”. These are both merely
thought experiments, that ask you to imagine designing a world where you didn’t
know anything about yourself. These things would include your ethnicity, your
geographic location, your beliefs, your favorite colour, your personal wealth, your
status in society, etc. This ensures that you cannot formulate a society designed to
assist the “you” that exists, but must attempt to help every position you might be
born into or might ultimately achieve, which means you must help everyone. The

8. 7
basic idea behind these theoretical compositions is that you can’t base any decisions
on personal knowledge of yourself when creating society’s institutions. You must
fairly assess what you would want if you were in every position simultaneously.
Thus you should create a just system where everyone has the potential for growth,
and everyone gets as close to a fair shake at life as possible (Rawls, pp. 118- 150).
That is actual equality, ensuring that everyone has a realistic chance to achieve their
dreams, no matter what those dreams are. This equality is designed to be
progressive, not simply regressively ensuring that society does not have access to
one’s current or future property.
Rawls’ system levels the playing field and drives equality because as a self-
interested person (a real person, in the real world) you would want to ensure that
wherever you were born you would be able to succeed and accomplish your goals
(whatever those may be) with as little hindrance as possible. Of course in practice
we have the luxury of knowing where we are in society and so a person can easily
disregard the “Original Position” and the “Veil of Ignorance”. That is a good criticism
of the theory, which is why Rawls only posits his idea as an ideal theory of a just
society. In order to create a just society you must follow the directives he lays out, or
else your society will not be as just as it could be. There is nothing forcing a person
to ensure that form of justice other than everyone else in the society. Hopefully
everyone in the society holds their leaders to a high standard which would make
their compliance to the ideal theory mandatory.
John Rawls’ liberal theory of justice is designed to create an equal playing
field for all based on the best interests of all people. If followed it should create a

9. 8
world where the vast majority of people can succeed at their goals, because the
randomness of birth does not hinder them. Unfortunately Rawls’ theory is only
really a thought experiment, which is not ideal when it comes to dealing with
implementation. All in all though, the concept of creating an equal playing field is
what should occur. Robert Nozick’s libertarianism is designed to ensure that others
do not take what is not theirs. Nozick, however, seems to forget the kind of world we
live in. He ignores the fact that people aren’t given the same opportunities for
success in life, and under a small government that would fail even more than it
currently does. He pretends that taxes are a form of slavery when they are actually
payment for the use of all that society offers. He seems to disregard actual equality
for imagined equality, though he hoped to create a more equal world, he actually
seems to widen disparity between haves, and have nots, which is a product of their
position at birth more than anything else. Rawls’ liberalism, although not perfect, is
the preferable approach.

10. 9
Bibliography
Nozick, R. (1974). Distributive Justice. Retrieved from:
http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/readings/nozick_justice.pdf
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Print.