Nozick's entitlement theory of justice is an attempt to provide an account of what justice requires with respect to property. Nozick's theory has three principles. The first of these principles has to do with property acquisition. The first requirement of ownership is that a person works with the property or on the property, The second requirement of this principle is that no person is made worse off when the owner acquires the property. The second principle is a version of the Lockean principle that private ownership is only justified when there is enough left for others to use and appropriate for themselves. Lastly, the only valid, or just transfer of property is a wholly voluntary transfer of property. A person is entitled to one's holdings if and only if one came to acquire the property according to the aforementioned principles. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick argues that redistributive policies in which the wealthy are taxed to help out poor people is unjust and give the poor property rights over the wealthy. The redistribution of wealth via the government is unjust because it violates all of these principles. First of all, the poor do not work for the wealth given to them, that is a violation of the first principle. Second, there is abundant opportunities for people to make money themselves (2nd principle). So why should the government hand the poor something that the wealthy person has presumably...

lastly, the transfer of property is not just because the wealthy did not personally and voluntarily agree with the transfer. It is therefore the case that wealth redistribution through involuntary taxation results in the poor having property rights over the wealthy, i.e., the wealth is controlled by a second party, when it should be controlled solely by the owner of the property.
Although the entitlement theory sounds fair enough in itself, there are several problems and rebuttals that Nozick faces in this application. Does the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor via government taxation really violate any of these principles? The short answer is no, it does not.

The first argument coincides with the first principle, that poor people do not work for the property that they own. This may be true in some cases, but it cannot be applied to all cases. In terms of manual labor, the poor person puts much more work into the society than the wealthy person does. Even if physical labor is taken out of the equation, poor people will work two or three jobs trying to support themselves and their families. Arguing that they have not worked for their wages and their government assistance is ludicrous in most cases. They work, they are simply not fortunate enough to have as well of paying jobs as the wealthy.

Similarly, the second argument is flawed. There is not…