Author: Daniel Weltman
Category: Social and Political Philosophy
Word Count: 998
Some people are rich. Others are poor. Is this bad? Many argue that it’s unjust for society to be deeply unequal, and that the government should step in to distribute wealth from the very rich to everyone else.[1]
Philosopher Robert Nozick (1938-2002) disagrees. Although it may sound reasonable to redistribute wealth, Nozick thinks that a story about the basketball superstar Wilt Chamberlain (1936-1999) shows why the government should not take from the rich to help everyone else.[2]
This article explains Nozick’s argument which he uses to support “libertarianism,” his view that the government’s role is not to redistribute wealth but to promote liberty.
1. The Story of Wilt Chamberlain
Imagine Chamberlain signs a contract with his basketball team. The contract gives Chamberlain 25 cents for every ticket sold to games he plays in. Over the basketball season, one million people come to watch Chamberlain. At the end of the season, he is $250,000 richer than before.[3]
It does not seem like anybody does anything wrong by paying to watch Chamberlain. People are entitled to spend their money however they would like. Nobody is harmed by this.[4]
So, if the government allows people to freely spend their money, there will be nothing to stop anyone from getting as rich as they are able to get based on their talent, hard work, luck, or anything else.
2. No Inequality Limits
Nozick argues that, because people like Chamberlain can get rich without anything bad happening, there should be no limit on how unequal society can get. The government should not step in to take money from anyone so long as it was given to that person freely by someone who rightly had the money in the first place. So, as long as nobody stole money to give it to Chamberlain, the government shouldn’t take Chamberlain’s money.[5]
3. Preventing Inequality Stifles Freedom
Nozick argues that ensuring equality in wealth would require unduly infringing on freedom.[6] Any amount of inequality that we think is “too much” is a level that could be reached by something like the Chamberlain example. To stop society from reaching this inequality, the government would have to prevent free transactions, or immediately undo them. It would either have to make it illegal for Chamberlain to sign his deal, or take the money as soon as he earns it.
Nozick thinks that this strict regulation, or constant repossession, would be unjust. The government would have to stop people from doing perfectly acceptable things, like paying extra to watch Chamberlain, or it would have to take his money as soon as he earns it.[7] But it would be wrong to limit freedom in this way, or to take Chamberlain’s earnings like this.
The conclusion, then, is that the government should not try to redistribute wealth. This is true even if the resulting situation is very unequal, like one rich Chamberlain in an otherwise poor society.
4. Libertarianism
Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain argument is one argument that he uses to defend his view that the best kind of government is one that doesn’t interfere with freedom. The government’s role is to promote everyone’s liberty, not redistribute wealth or promote economic equality.
Nozick is therefore known as a “libertarian.” Sometimes the word “libertarian” is used to mean other things. But in political philosophy, it refers to people who think the government should promote freedom.
Some libertarians argue that we need economic equality to preserve freedom.[8] Nozick disagrees. His Wilt Chamberlain argument is meant to show that establishing economic equality would interfere with freedom.
Libertarianism contrasts with the view defended by philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002). Rawls thinks that the government is more than just a defender of freedom. It’s also a cooperative venture. Thus we should distribute the benefits of this cooperation fairly, and this includes the money people earn in society. Rawls thinks this requires something close to equal distribution, rather than letting the rich get richer.[9]
5. Objections
Many objections have been leveled against Nozick’s argument.
One objection is that Nozick is wrong to claim that as long as everybody acts freely, there’s nothing wrong with the outcome. Maybe certain free choices can lead to unacceptable outcomes.
For example, when Wilt Chamberlain ends up much richer than everyone else, he becomes powerful and influential. He can buy up all the apartments and charge us rent to live in them, making him even richer and us even poorer. He can invest money in profitable businesses, and use the returns to expand his investments. He can pass that money to his children who do the same. The result can be deep class divisions lasting centuries.
So, some argue that in order to keep him from having too much power, the government should redistribute his extra wealth. Otherwise, people won’t be free. Their lives will be controlled by oligarchs like Chamberlain and his descendants.[10]
Another objection is that Nozick is wrong to claim that free actions will wreck any preferred distribution of resources. Maybe it’s true that we can’t all have equal wealth five minutes after the basketball season ends unless the government uses a heavy hand to redistribute money. But maybe it’s more reasonable to ensure equal wealth over a longer period of time.
For example, maybe the government should ensure we all have roughly equal wealth over our lifetimes, rather than equal wealth at all times, including right after the basketball season. The government can tax Wilt Chamberlain a little bit extra each year. Then it can spend that money on things that benefit the least wealthy, like unemployment benefits. Over time, Chamberlain’s extra basketball money will return to others, ensuring equality over everyone’s lifetimes, instead of immediately after the basketball season.[11]
6. Conclusion
The Wilt Chamberlain argument has inspired rich debate about what sorts of relationships exist (or should exist) between the government, freedom, and resources.
Because the example effectively dramatizes key topics like how freedom and specific distributions are perhaps in conflict, it has remained an enduring example in political philosophy.
Notes
[1] See Distributive Justice: How Should Resources be Allocated? by Dick Timmer and Tim Meijers.
[2] Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 149-50.
[3] Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 161.
[4] Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 161.
[5] Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 160.
[6] Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 163-4.
[7] Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 163.
[8] See Vallentyne and Steiner, Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics.
[9] See John Rawls’s ‘A Theory of Justice’ by Ben Davies.
[10] Rawls, Political Liberalism, 267 and Cohen, “Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain.”
[11] Schmidtz, “The Right to Distribute,” 205-7.
References
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Basic Books, 1974).
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press, 1993).
Schmidtz, David. “The Right to Distibute.” In The Cambridge Companion to Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, edited by Ralf M. Bader and John Meadowcroft, 197-229 (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Vallentyne, Peter and Hillel Steiner (eds.).Left Liberalism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate (Palgrave Macmillan, 2000).
Related Essays
Distributive Justice: How Should Resources be Allocated? by Dick Timmer and Tim Meijers
John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’ by Ben Davies
Civil Disobedience: Seeking Justice by Breaking the Law by Henry Krahn
On Karl Marx’s Slogan “From Each According to their Ability, To Each According to their Need” by Sam Badger
Consequentialism and Utilitarianism by Shane Gronholz
Translation
PDF Download
Download this essay in PDF.
About the Author
Daniel Weltman is an associate professor of philosophy at Ashoka University, India. He works primarily on topics in social and political philosophy and in ethics. DanielWeltman.com
Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook, Bluesky, Twitter, and Instagram and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com
Discover more from 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
6 thoughts on “Robert Nozick’s “Wilt Chamberlain” Argument for Libertarianism”
Comments are closed.