The argument goes as follows (taken from the internet encyclopedia of philosophy): nozick illustrates and defends the entitlement theory in a famous thought-experiment involving the basketball player wilt chamberlain. 1 nozick’s argument against patterned theories in anarchy, state, and utopia, robert nozick presents his theory of distributive justicei, called the entitlement theory, in defense of the idea of a minimal state. Wendt: nozick’s wilt chamberlain argument 2 year, with players being free agents) he signs the following sort of contract with a team: in each home game, twenty-five cents from the price of each ticket of admission goes to him.
Be known as the “wilt chamberlain” argument assume, he says, that the distribution of holdings in a given society is just according to some theory based on patterns or historical circumstances—eg, the egalitarian theory, according to which only a strictly equal distribution of holdings. Since writing about the wilt chamberlain example last week, i’ve been revisiting anarchy, state, and utopia and thinking about what legitimate criticisms can be leveled against this particular step in nozick’s argument.
In nozick's wilt chamberlain example, it is not strictly that wilt chamberlain fills the stadium with people anxious to see him play, then leaves with $250,000 that right there is not the voluntary exchange it is a (voluntary) exchange for chamberlain. Nozick’s wilt chamberlain example by tyler cowen march 6, 2008 at 7:08 am in they are actually richer after they see wilt play the argument for taxing will is really that the market is not efficient enough to accurately price-in and collect fees for all the things we should be paying for (assuming we have a collective responsibility.
What the wilt chamberlain example is supposed to prove it’s a weak argument, but for basically different reasons than is commonly supposed suddenly wilt chamberlain is rich and the. Since writing about the wilt chamberlain example last week, i’ve been revisiting anarchy, state, and utopia and thinking about what legitimate criticisms can be leveled against this particular step in nozick’s argument i still think stephen metcalf’s complaints are basically frivolous, and.
Standard theories of justice are either historical end-state or end-result theories, requiring distribution to fit a distinct historical pattern, thus being unable to adapt to modern generations the wilt chamberlain argument according to nozick's theory it is not unjust, because chamberlain acquired his holdings by legitimate means 1. Bob nozick’s “famous wilt chamberlain argument” was an attempt to argue against the type of government system he described as “distributive justice” the famous argument appears in nozick’s first book, anarchy, state and utopia in 1974—the book which made the young professor a major star. Nozick's famous wilt chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty he asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, d1 is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance rawls's difference principle. Since robert nozick blogging is hot now, let me chime in and say that i think jon chait and steven metcalf have misunderstand what the “wilt chamberlain example” in anarchy, state, and utopia.
This is especially true considering the way in which nozick uses the premise: the basketball player wilt chamberlain has an exchange of (x hours of work) - ($250,000) available to him, where the rest of the population cannot do that or at least an equivalent exchange. Nozick's argument against patterned theories of justice is that they are incompatible with liberty and uses the example of wilt chamberlain to argue for this point in an imaginary world we assume a patterned theory of justice. Wilt chamberlain argument of nozick & its criticism nozick was a harvard philosopher he was conservative, some would say libertarian, in his insistence on the bare minimum amount of government needed to keep society functioning.