One of the fundamental components of a political definition of justice that is mainly endorsed by the United States is giving the least advantaged members of society a fair position, freedom of choice, and fair equality of opportunity. Modern welfare states, where people are free to choose their acts and assume responsibility for them, are likewise created by these fundamental components. There are three sections to this essay. The first part offers an argument from John Rawls and Thomas Paine in support of the proposal government creating social equality despite the well-off seen it as a breach of liberty rights. Rawls focuses on the equality of members of the society to achieve the equality of opportunity, and he doesn’t give much attention on whether the redistribution of wealth has been attained equally or not. The second part offers an argument from Nozick critiquing the proposal with him he doesn’t support the egalitarian principles supported by Rawls which extends in part three in pointing out arguments from Marx and Engels not in support to the proposal as a challenge to the bourgeois property.

Part One

The Federal government coming up with such a proposal by taxing the inheritance properties which majority is owned by the rich and transferring out the taxes to the citizens all who attain the age of 18 under a government policy scrutiny is in support with Rawls work “ Theory of Justice” for a just society that is explained in two principles of justice which underlines that everything that is chosen by free and equal persons should be in fair conditions to support the basic terms of social cooperation in a just society. According to Rawls concepts in support of the proposal by the federal government is supported by the following principle which includes Social inequality. It underlines that “social and economic inequalities are to arranged so that they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least fortunate members of the society and conditions that are fair equality of opportunity has to be enhanced to provide positions and offices to everyone by ensuring every citizen has a voice. Besides individuals who have extensive holdings in a property will be better equipped to practice and exercise meaningful freedoms in contrary with individuals with inadequate holdings. Therefore to some redistributive functions of a state are too essential since it will be able to provide adequate and all-purpose means for the deployment and the enjoyment of liberal individual freedoms in a substantial manner. In a critical analysis taxing the better off to develop the worst off is formidable despite the fact that those high in society believe it reduces their freedoms of liberty (such are supported by Karl Marx).

In the same context on Rawl's first principle where each person is to have an equal right in the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with liberties for others requires a tax system to break up its negative political influences on wealth concentrations to ensure equal liberties of citizens are possible.

According to liberal egalitarianism, the state should transfer ownership of privately owned property and resources from the well-off citizens to the worst of citizens because failure in doing so offends freedom of equality and other values that are important. Therefore the state has to use its coercive power to counter the current contemporary regime on liberal individual freedom and private property freedom.

According to Rawls basic liberties that are equal create a status of equal democratic citizenship which is accorded to all members of the society. He further argues some inequalities in the society for social and economic benefits is productive whereby the economy is arranged in a sense that inequalities are generated to ensure the least advantaged in the society benefit from the long run flowing of primary goods. Rawls states that equality is to be achieved by creating a better position for the least advantaged in the economic sphere by resting his argument on the aspect of a type of family one is born whether poor or rich should not determine their economic positions in the society including getting opportunities and chances (Arneson).

T. H. Marshalls in “Citizenship and Social Class," he conceptualizes his idea on three levels of citizenship this includes civil citizenship which explains ideas of equality before the law and rights of individuals. Social citizenship which articulates the notion of all members of a state ought to enjoy and share at least a basic level of social, economic and cultural well-being in the state. In political citizenship, he explains the existence of legislature that has been elected by the people to promote universal suffrage to secure civil liberties. In support of Marshall's work regarding the proposal promoting social equality in citizenship leads to the primary development of other rights in an evolutionary sequence. In his proposition on the concept of modern citizenship he explains that citizenship is a status that is acquired on all those who are full members of a society and those members share rights, duties, responsibilities and are all bound to the common law. He further advocates the growth of modern citizenship to eliminate the existing inequalities in the society. Therefore modern citizenship creates a common possession out of the loyalty of civilization and as a status held by all it expands the horizons of equality at the expense of social class (Tata Institute of Social Sciences).

Thomas Paine stated that a civilized force and freedom of trade is the main principle of wealth. According to landed property system which has taken the natural property of all those whom it dispossessed, a loss was made, and compensation had to be made. Paine proposition in creating a natural fund out of which shall be paid to everybody upon racing the age of 21 years as part of the loss of his natural inheritance after he introduced the system of landed property whereby every proprietor who had cultivated land owed to the society a ground rent for land that wasn’t developed since it is common property (supported by Locke’s readings). The welfare program as suggested by Paine in Agrarian Justice was considered modest by Seaman; the plan would provide a better environment for a growing economy. Paine always suggested that the rich should always support the program since they would benefit without necessarily oppressing the poor since it will prevent people becoming poor from the start of their productive life. In support of my thesis statement by supporting the poor, it will reduce violence against property thus protecting property rights. In an equal economic system, the worst of living standards will always improve thus more wealthy people develop (Paine). Therefore increase in wealth would increase national kitty proportionally.

Part Two

Robert Nozick writings and works are not in support of the proposal, to start with his position as a libertarian. In his writings Anarchy, State and Utopia, he explains in a theme of how the government has a limited role in its action in redistribution of resources more so taxes. He demonstrates the state has the responsibility of protecting individual rights and particularly their property rights. According to him, individual rights are so strong that the state is constrained within its phenomenal for its protection. I addition the state is not justified in taking individuals holdings through taxation to serve the welfare needs of the poor. I further argue as per Nozick concepts against egalitarian principles of redistribution schemes as argued in part 1. Nozick argues that egalitarian measures in redistribution of wealth from the fortunate to unfortunate offends the liberal intentions and notions of individual freedom and property freedom and with other political exercises of political power which they view as illegitimate.

In his work, he states that egalitarian policies should not be practiced in a state that is just and he compares the policies with torture and slavery in the same state to be prohibited. In this context, he develops a slavery analogy and compares it with redistribution policies developed by a state forces individuals to work against their will (Kocsis). He critically addresses the legitimacy of a state in developing such policies.

Robert Nozick on Individual rights and nature of the minimal state argues that individual rights are not to be traded even if it means the state take control for the gain of the whole society. He further alludes that egalitarian principle of transferring individual owned properties to other members of the community limit property freedoms in the interests of other crucial liberal freedoms.

According to Nozick he also argues redistributing wealth via tax amounts to forced labor. The state by taxing other people’s income and wealth violates individuals’ liberty since by doing so it makes people effort not worth it. According to Nozick, the state can be seen as an institution that exists and serves to protect private property rights regardless of the egalitarian policies of some people deserving more or less than what they already possess. Nozick explains this in three principles of distribution, whereby the state mandate is protect and secure individuals properties and their safety from forces within or outside the state’s territory. The Nozickian state is only mandated within its right to demand tax monies to support functions and activities that will protect the individual freedoms and the property freedoms. This includes a civil police force and an army to protect the state within and outside the territory respectively. There should also be a need for a judiciary system to look upon practical matters on the status of contracts over disagreements that might occur, in violations of property and personal rights. The Judiciary will also function in cases where justice has been violated in the principles of justice in transfer and justice in acquisition (Kocsis).This will ensure that holdings are restored to where they rightly belong. Therefore all state functions beyond these roles are illegitimate, and thus the egalitarian liberals should oblige to consider this since they are founded on liberal values.

The entitlement theory in Nozick discussions and arguments created the following assumptions, first, the theory only specifies the conditions under which ownership of property is justified. It has ignored the idea of property freedom which is a feature of liberalism. It also doesn’t offer exact forms that are legitimate in property acquisition. Second, the entitlement theory argues that property freedom is the most significant expression of individual freedom leaving out the significance of non-property freedoms which are also fundamental individual’s freedom. The theory leaves out important and different conclusions of individual freedoms and property freedoms (Kocsis).

Part Three: Communist Manifesto

Marx and Engels would view this proposal as a challenge to the bourgeoisie private owned property. In my argument, the federal government through its redistribution of resources creates a strong foundation of equality of resources in promoting the value of individual liberty. This enables people and humans to choose a life of their own that will limit them being controlled by the rich in the society and weaken structures put in place by the bourgeois to their advantage. This creates a situation whereby each person is accorded respect and any inequalities developed should be accepted as fair because they result from the choices of individuals on how to use their resources.

The Communist Manifesto lay claims that show the proposal will be a challenge, according to Marx the proletariat have been in constant antagonism with the bourgeois since the proletariat are slaves to their bourgeois masters, and by increasing their economic power in the market this will increase the high costs of production to the bourgeois making it harder to pay the wages of the proletariat and also to control them since they would have acquired the social power.

According to Marx increasing the proletariat class consciousness will ultimately their social status and they will start mobilizing their interest against that of the rich by condemning all the laws, morality and economic interests of the bourgeois to their downfall. The aspect of creating a common ground to all will threaten the sustainability of bourgeois properties since fundamental conditions of the bondage between the proletariats and bourgeois including private property institutions will have been destroyed.

Marx class struggle creates a specific form of human history. Class antagonism engines the change in history and different class relationships at different times defines the historical epochs at a specific point in time. Marx further brings out in his account of feudalism’s passing in favor of bourgeois in capitalism which later creates a proletarian rule out of prognostication of bourgeois capitalisms that favors the rule. Therefore for bourgeois to maintain the class antagonism in favor of their private property institutions they have to create the proletariat as a condition to their self-development to minimize their costs of production and increase more labor in the burgeoning industries. In a crucial note increasing the capital base of the proletariat will mean they get more influence among themselves hence increase their power to overthrow the oppressors and this will eradicate the possible conditions for bourgeois existence.

According to the communist in regard to the proposal, developing of a modern laborer poses a threat to the bourgeois who were created out of feudal system and rose to high economic social class contrary to the modern laborer instead of rising with the industry progress ,the developed by sinking deeper below the conditions of their own class. In this context, the modern laborer develops faster and rapidly than wealth and population giving a clear evidence that the bourgeois cannot be among the ruling class in the society and impose its conditions of existence by its overriding laws. Therefore the existence of bourgeois is no longer incompatible with the society since it is incompetent to assure the existence to its slave within his slavery. Therefore the development of modern laborer destroys the foundation on which bourgeois appropriates and produces its product and creating the rise of proletariats inevitable.

According to the communist manifesto in support of my thesis statement, communists came up with one common interest in support of the proletariat in their course from moving from the shackles and oppression of bourgeois this promoted a common goal independently of your nationality to promote the common interest. Communists aim in creating proletariat into a class was effective and essential to overthrow the bourgeois political supremacy and create a new social, political space for the proletariat. Among the distinctive features of communists was abolishing of bourgeois private property relations. According to the communist’s property is alleged to be the groundwork of independence, activity and all personal freedom in a modern capitalist society. In crucial note when capital is converted into the common property to ensure all members of the society acquire as per the communists' personal property is not transformed into the social property but the social character of the property changes thus losing its class character. Capital is, therefore, social power but not personal (Turker).


In promoting an equal and a just society a state should not deprive a man of the power to appropriate the products of the society, but it should subject people by taking of the power from them to subjugate others labor using appropriations. The creation of an equal society will put an end to the exploitation of one individual by another which will also lead an end of exploitation of one nation by another thus creating an end of antagonism between classes in the societies.

Works Cited

Arneson, Dick. John Rawls's Theory Of Justice, Notes For Philosophy 167. 2008.

Kocsis, Michael. Distributive Justice, Liberal Freedom And Equal Liberty. May 2000.

Paine, Thomas. Agrarian Justice. 1999.

Tata Institute Of Social Sciences. Journal Of Political Sciences & Public Affairs. 6 September 2017. 4 November 2017. .

Turker, Robert C. Manifesto Of The Communist Party . 1978.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Receive Paper In 3 Hours
Calculate the Price
275 words
First order 15%
Total Price:
$38.07 $38.07
Calculating ellipsis
Hire an expert
This discount is valid only for orders of new customer and with the total more than 25$
This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Get Price