The Equality And Freedom In The Justification Of States' Legitimacy

This article will focus on two different approaches of John Rawls and Robert Nozick's justification of the legitimacy of the state to explain the difference between Minimal State approach and equal-basic state approach, and claim, by showing the criticism which Nozick bing up, that the essence of such difference is the disputation of freedom and equality.At last, the author will reveal the enlightenment of the substantive equality and formal equality.This article will contains 4 sections.The first section "the justification of the legitimacy of the state" reviews three different approaches of John Locke, Rawls and Nozick's viewpoint on legitimacy problem. John Locke is the founder of modern times liberal theory of the state. It is helpful for us to review his theory to understand the other two;Nozick starts his discussion of state theory by the logic of "the Minimal State".He lays emphasis on discussing whether a state can be born in Natural State which begins with anarchy and in a style which does not violate individual rights.He considers the answer as"yes"and for that reason the state has its legitimacy;Rawls presents his two Principles of Justice by leading an more generally, more abstract "Original Position" into Natural State and assuming the "Veil of Ignorance", and this is how he solve the problem of "justification of the legitimacy of the state".The second section "the the nature and limits of political power" mainly discuss the perspective on state of Rawls and Nozick. Nozick point out that the question whether a state----in a minimal way, a night watcher----can interfere more affairs than the bottom line, and the answer is "no" because if a state carry on more duty than the bottom line, Its legitimacy will become suspicious.Rawls, however, emphasizes the necessity of public power intervene civic life.He consider the state as a great role in a social system to create a equal environment for each one in society, and the only way to solve inequality is redistribution by taxing the citizen income.The third section "the conflict of equality and freedom in justification of the legitimacy"first makes a summary of the history of equality and freedom's conflict. On the basis of that, the author will consider the dispute between Nozick and Rawls as a conflict of equality and freedom.To Nozick, the freedom is inviolable. unfortunate consequences must be accepted as long as such results stand within the law, even these consequences is due to the brutal competition in the market.But in this section, the author will stand by Rawls'perspective and reply Nozick's criticism-If, and only if, we can understand Rawls'theoretic construction correctly, then the the conflict of equality and freedom can be eliminated inside his theory.The last section will draw the question of formal equality and substantive equality from the conflict of equality and freedom. We can see that the formal equality is the bottom of the freedom, and the liberalist will all agree that formal equality's importance to the individual rights.The core of this disputation is substantive equality.The author will somehow bring up some question that may be very important in this section to reveal the imperfection in Rawls'theory.And by that, here to leave open space for other scholars who study in this issue.