Philosophy
Justice in Rawls and Nozick
Quick fact
In his 'Wilt Chamberlain' argument, Nozick claimed that a society might legitimately end up with extreme inequality if individuals freely choose to pay to watch a star basketball player, even if it began perfectly equal.
Why this is interesting
Imagine you designed society without knowing where you'd be born, your wealth, or your talents—what kind of world would you choose? But what if you were told that any fair design must respect your right to keep everything you earn?