In order to gain a more complex understanding of Novick's idea of liberty one would actually have to consider the difference principle and the effects it would have on groups of people who managed to differentiate themselves from the masses by becoming productive and by directing their attention toward making profits without hurting anyone or acting in disagreement with rights generally accepted by the social order. Rawls virtually acts in discordance with all that Novick's stands for, as the latter considers freedom as being one of the most important concepts that society has access to.

Novick would certainly be reluctant to accept living in a society where people accept the difference principle and guide themselves in accordance to it. The philosopher's book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" is practically meant to condemn individuals like Rawls as a result of their ignorance of ideas that are very obvious. It is likely that Novick was infuriated with Rawls' proposition for society to put behind it hundreds of years of progress in the field of liberty-related studies with the purpose of providing the worst-off with the ability to have access to concepts that they are not likely to have access to as a result of their condition. In addition to seeing privilege as a divisive matter, Novick also believed that it was only natural for people to be free to progress as long as they had the determination to do so, regardless of their social status or of their general condition.

Argument 3 Nozick's objections would assist the masses in acknowledging that it is in their best interest to oppose the difference principle by enabling individuals to understand that the idea of freedom needs to be accessible to everyone, even with the fact that some might have more chances to be successful than others. The contemporary society is particularly supportive of ideas related to freedom and it would thus be impossible for the difference principle to be appreciated by the majority. There are certainly a great deal of individuals who are born in underprivileged...

By taking into account this statement, it appears easier to understand why Nozick would be reluctant to accept the difference principle. The philosopher considered that in his struggle for making the world a better place, Rawls failed to understand that he ignored some of the most basic rights that society could possibly promote. He identified the fact that Rawls's theory was flawed and wanted to highlight freedom as the one value that people needed to respect regardless of circumstances. By taking on this attitude Nozick virtually presented society with the reality concerning humanity in the present -- some people are likely to feel privileged, but a healthy community provides individuals with benefits on account of their efforts, as some might be provided with very little resources while other (who are hard working) are likely to be appreciated as a result of their attributes.
Conclusion

Nozick's ideas concerning the difference principle revolve around the concept that it is basically benevolent in character. However, the philosopher wanted society to understand that one first needs to consider the importance of liberty before attempting to address other matters, as only by taking on such an attitude is the respective individual likely to experience success in his or her endeavor. All things considered, in order to understand why the difference principle is wrong, one needs to concentrate on the fact that this theory stands as a direct attack on the freedom of individuals who work for their resources and who need to be provided with recognition because of their strong determination.