Introduction to Political Theory

Just transfer

Just transfer is dependent upon just acquisition, for you cannot justly transfer what

you have not justly acquired. Furthermore, acquisition is a very strong idea – it

entails full control over the thing that is acquired, including the power to transfer

it to another person. Nozick takes the example of Wilt Chamberlain (1936–99),

considered by many to be the greatest basketball player of all time. Consider the

exercise in the box.

Chapter 4 Justice 87

Wilt Chamberlain and just transfer

Imagine a basketball match watched by 3,000 people, each of whom pay $20 to see
Chamberlain play, and $8 of that $20 goes directly to Chamberlain (the $8 can be taken to be
Chamberlain’s marginal value: if he were not playing the organisers would have to sell the
tickets at $12). Let us assume that each of the 3,000 spectators and Chamberlain earn $40,000.
This is, of course, unrealistic, but it is intended to make a point. We can compare earnings –
what Nozick calls ‘holdings’ – before and after the tickets were bought:

Spectators’ holdings Chamberlain’s holdings
Before purchase $40,000 ×3,000 $40,000
After purchase $39,980 ×3,000 $64,000

Is there any reason why Chamberlain should not keep the $24,000 he has gained as a result of
the ticket purchases?

Focus

Nozick argues that so long as Chamberlain did not use threats or fraud to acquire

each $8 then his additional earning is legitimately his by a simple transfer (Nozick,

1974: 161–3). The fact that such transfers will over time create significant

inequalities – in the example we went from equality to inequality – is irrelevant,

for what matters is that individuals have consented to the transfer. Those who object

to such transfers want, in Nozick’s words, ‘to forbid capitalist acts between

consenting adults’ (Nozick, 1974: 163). To evaluate the force of Nozick’s argument

we need to compare his theory of justice with the alternatives.

Types of theory

Nozick divides theories of justice into two groups – end-state and historical (Nozick,

1974: 153–5) – with a subdivision of the second into patterned and unpatterned

theories (Nozick, 1974: 155–60).

• End-state theoriesThese theories are not concerned with what people do, but
  only with the end result. Utilitarian theories fall into this category – the aim is