Declaration ✘

In submitting this work, I confirm that I have read and understood University of
Stirling regulations relating to Academic Misconduct and am aware of the 
possible penalties.
I have completed this assigned work by myself, in my own words and using my
own notes, figures or rough workings (except where group work specifically forms ☐
part of the assignment).
I have acknowledged fully any sources used by referencing (see Stirling
referencing styles) and the creation of a bibliography at the end of the document. 
I have endeavoured to ensure that my work has not been made available for
copying by other students (with or without my permission). 
I have not submitted this work in any other form and, therefore, am aware of the
consequences of self-plagiarism. 
In submitting this work for assessment, I agree to be bound by the conditions laid
out above, and by the University of Stirling’s academic regulations and divisional
academic regulations. Further guidance on academic integrity and writing can be 
found here.
I confirm that I have checked the similarity report for this assessment (i.e. not
merely the similarity score). See instructions on how to access the report here. 
I understand that this assignment will be submitted to Turnitin for originality
checking. 
(Delete/edit as appropriate):
 I confirm that this is my own work and I have not incorporated or used any
content produced by generative AI in the research or writing of this
assessment.
 I confirm that this is my own work and I have not incorporated any content 
produced by generative AI during the writing of this assessment.
 I confirm that this is my own work and I have followed the module’s
guidelines on the ethical use of generative AI for this assessment.

STUDENT REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2717119

MODULE CODE: POLU9PJ

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION/TASK: Explain and critically evaluate Nozick’s conception of

‘justice in acquisition’.

WORD COUNT: 1185

 An explanation and evaluation of Nozick’s conception of ‘Just in
Acquisition’.
Over the centuries there have been many theories of justice, what it looks like and how it
should be carried out. Yet none of these theories have ever arrived at a definitive conclusion
on the nature of justice. One theorist who has spent much time writing on justice is Nozick,
in particular this essay is concerned with his concept of ‘Just in acquisition.’ We will provide
an explanation of this concept as well as evaluating it. Contending with both its strength and
addressing the criticisms that have been laid against it.

In order to properly evaluate and criticize just in acquisition we must first provide a proper
explanation of the concept. The idea of ‘Just in acquisition’ according to Nozick concerns
how we come to have a right to specific resources. Nozick believes a person is entitled to all
the resources they are able to acquire through their own ability whether those resources be
bought, made or merely lucked into. At a first glance this would appear similar to john
Lock’s theory of just acquisition, the idea that by combining acquired property with your
own labour, such as tilling a field and planting crops, that property justly becomes yours, so
long as you leave enough for others. However, Nozick is actually quite critical of this
concept. He questions why mixing one’s labour with unowned property necessitates that
property becoming yours. To illustrate this Nozick gives the example of pouring a can of
tomato juice into the ocean. Arguing that not only does a person not come to own the
ocean simply by mixing tomato juice they own with it, but that have in fact lost what they
previously owned while gaining nothing (Nozick, 2013) Furthermore, Nozick argues that
even in a case were mixing one’s labour with property, such as in the previously mentioned
tilled field that a person does not become the owner of the whole property, only the surplus
value their labour has created. In the case of our tilled field a person would come to own
the crops they planted but not the land those crops were planted on (Nozick, 2013). Nozick
himself did not attempt to develop a labour mixing theory instead choosing to focus on a
modified version of the Lockean proviso as the only thing necessary for the just acquisition
of property. According to Nozick, the original proviso proposed by lock, that we should leave
enough and as good for others to acquire, is insufficient as certain valuable commodities
such as land are limited resources and we would eventually reach a point where we cannot
leave as good or enough for others, thus making all previous acquisitions unjust. Nozick, in
an attempt to resolve this issue makes a modification to the proviso, arguing that so long as
an acquisition does not leave anyone worse off, the acquisition is just (Campbell, 2010). For
example, even if the last piece of arable land is acquired that creates new opportunities for
those who do not own any land, such as owning the mill to grind farmed grain into flour.
These new opportunities make up for the loss of those previous opportunities. Nozick
further argues that this system of private property is so advantageous that individuals, even
if they find themselves in a situation of owning none of the means of production and simply
sell their labour to those that do will still be far better off than they would have in the state
of nature as the economic benefits of private property create a level of productivity and
wealth for society that far surpasses anything that could be achieved in the subsistence
living one engages in without such a system of private property.

While Nozick’s arguments surrounding private property and private ownership do have their
merits, they have not gone un-criticized. Firstly, Nozick’s entire argument for his theory of
just acquisition is based on the assumption that private property is the most efficient way to
utilise the earth’s resources. However, he makes little effort to justify this assumption,
dismissing the concept of common ownership of resources for the betterment of all within
society. It is from this adherence to the benefits of private ownership and private property
that many of the other critiques of Nozick follow. One such critique can be made against
Nozick’s modification to the Lockean proviso. Nozick claims that in order for an acquisition
to be just it must leave no one worse off. But worse off in comparison to what. According to
Nozick they must be no worse off than they would have been in the state of nature, where
individuals live a life of subsistence. While perhaps in theory this proviso sounds like it
would provide an adequate framework for just acquisition, in the real it is not difficult to
imagine a scenario where individuals who did not have the good fortune to be one of the
few to join the owning class live a life barely above subsistence living, selling their labour to
earn what merger wages they can while those who are members of the owning class live
lives of decedent luxury (Oneill, 1982). Under Nozick’s framework this would be considered
entirely just as individuals living in abject poverty are still better off than in the state of
nature yet it is hard to imagine that many people would agree that letting people live in
poverty while other have more wealth than they could every spend is just. While it is true
that systems of private property such as the one that Nozick proposes are capable of
generating vast quantities of wealth, far beyond that of what would be possible in the state
of nature, that wealth does not always go towards the benefit of all within society. In fact,
systems of private property have a tendency towards funnelling the product of society into
the hands of a very limited few, more often than not those who already possess great
wealth, leading to the aforementioned extreme gaps in wealth.

In conclusion, Nozick’s theory of just acquisition is a modification and expansion of many of

the theories proposed by John Lock. Where Lock asserts that just acquisition comes from
mixing one’s labour with unclaimed property and that we should leave enough and as good
for others to claim. Nozick rejects the idea of labour mixing and makes modifications to the
Lockean proviso. Labour mixing is rejected on the grounds that mixing one’s labour does not
always improve unclaimed property, and even in cases where improvements to productivity
are made a person only becomes entitled to the additional product generated by their own
labour. Nozick also finds the original Lockean proviso to be insufficient, and so modifies it to
claim that acquisition is just if it leaves no one worse off than before. However, Nozick’s
theories have been criticized. Nozick does little to justify the necessity of a system of private
property and dismissed the concept of communal ownership. Nozick’s theories of just
acquisition also leave room for vast wealth inequalities that many would call unjust.
Bibliography
Nozick, R. (2013). Anarchy, state, and utopia. 2013 edition. New York, Basic Books.
Campbell, T. (2010). Justice. 3rd edition. London, Palgrave Macmillan.
Oneill, O. (1982). Reading Nozick: essays on Anarchy, state and utopia. Oxford, Basil
Blackwell