Entitlement theory, developed by philosopher Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is a libertarian political philosophy that focuses on justice in holdings (possessions) rather than on a particular pattern of distribution.
It argues that a distribution of wealth is just if it arises from a series of just acquisitions and transfers, regardless of the final outcome or pattern of the distribution.
Nozick’s theory is a direct challenge to “patterned” theories of justice, like John Rawls’s, which argue for a specific distribution of resources based on criteria such as need or equality.
The Three Principles of The Entitlement Theory
Nozick’s theory is built upon three core principles that, together, define a just system of property holdings:
- The Principle of Justice in Acquisition: This principle addresses how a person can justly acquire an unowned natural resource. Drawing on John Locke, Nozick argues that a person who mixes their labor with an unowned resource, without making others worse off, is entitled to it. For example, a person who finds a patch of previously unowned land and cultivates it for crops justly acquires it. The key is that the acquisition doesn’t worsen the condition of others who might also need the resource.
- The Principle of Justice in Transfer: This principle governs the transfer of holdings from one person to another. It states that a person is justly entitled to a holding if they acquire it through a voluntary transaction from someone who was already entitled to it. This includes transactions like gifts, sales, and inheritances, as long as they are free from coercion or fraud.
- The Principle of Rectification of Injustice: This principle is a necessary “cleanup” rule for situations where holdings have been acquired or transferred unjustly. It provides a mechanism to correct past wrongs, such as theft, fraud, or slavery. Nozick argues that if current holdings are the result of unjust actions in the past, a state is justified in taking action to rectify the situation and restore the just distribution that would have existed otherwise.
The Wilt Chamberlain Example
To illustrate his argument, Nozick presents the famous “Wilt Chamberlain” example.
He asks us to imagine a society with a perfectly just distribution of wealth according to some patterned principle (e.g., everyone has an equal amount of money).
Then, a basketball player, Wilt Chamberlain, signs a contract where he gets a small fee from every ticket sold to his games.
As a result, millions of people voluntarily pay to see him play, and he becomes much wealthier than everyone else.
Nozick argues that this new distribution, despite being unequal, is just.
Why?
Because it resulted from a series of just transfers (people voluntarily giving up their money) from a starting point that was already just.
Any attempt by the state to redistribute Chamberlain’s wealth through taxation would be a violation of his rights and an unjust interference in a voluntary transaction.
This example highlights Nozick’s central belief that liberty upsets patterns and that upholding individual rights is more important than achieving a specific distribution of wealth.