Nozick

Against nozick 

Proportionalality principle of distribution according to talents, and efforts.

Nozick argues that people have absolute self ownership. And further he argues that all products from ones labor also belong to the person. And further any voluntary transfer of these money or estates are just as well. Now let's see where we may criticise his theory. 

Firstly, we may examine wether the absolute self ownership stands. It is in fact relies on a natural right theory which is a old one. It is rhetoric expression of the intuitive belief about self ownership. It does not offer any substantive or justifictary  support as our common intuition about self ownership. It is an assumption. I admit it's validity even without the theory of natural right. I also admit it as a fact that the content of people's self ownership vary from one to another. I see them as natural lucks. So far so good. As the premise of justification or as the starting point for hypothetical parties, these assumption and fact do not show its moral significance. But when we see them by looking at their actual or potential effect on people's cooperation and thereby individual fates within society, we will see something significantly different. 

The point is our understanding of the society. Here I understand the society as a cooperative system through which people aim to obtain higher gain than they would on his own. It means the society should be at least proportionally beneficial to all of them according to their talents and distribution. Cohen and Otsuka have criticised Nozick on self ownership and distribution of world ownership. Here I would not discuss much about a fairer original distribution of world ownership. I would focus on the transfer part, where the improper differentiating effect of luck is exposed. 

According to the idea of a cooperative society, no matter what talent people have originally, they all want to benefit from the cooperation. The market is the considered best