← See the axis · Distributive justice

Undeserved is not up for redistribution

That I did not earn my gifts gives no one the right to dispose of them: the absence of desert is not a collective title.

Objects to Egalitarianism

Nozick · Anarchy, State, and Utopia · 1974

1. The argument first grants that no one deserves their talents, then concludes that society may redistribute their fruits.
2. But 'not deserving' something does not mean that others have a right to it: from the fact that I do not deserve the color of my eyes or the affection of those close to me, it does not follow that they belong to the collective.
3. Between 'no one deserves their gifts' and 'society may dispose of them', a premise is missing: that each person's talents are a common asset. But that is exactly what is in dispute.

Therefore So the argument leaps from the undeserved to the redistributable: remove the hidden premise of collective ownership of talents, and the natural lottery no longer justifies redistribution.