Invisible Hand or Social Contract: Nozick, Rawls and Social Justice

tate, using the concept of “invisible hand”. By this, he means that the formation of the political is justified by the nonpolitical. So, without explicit appealing to the political concepts, the state can be justified. This state, i.e. the minimal state, raised from the private contracts between people, has the main duty to protect from citizens. In the sconed part of his book, after introducing the “entitlement theory of justice”, he argues that all states beyond the minimal state are illegitimate. The main arguments for these kinds of states are realizing social justice, so Nozick rejects these arguments. By analyzing Nozick’s argument against social justice, I show that these arguments are invalid. Then by critical analysis of invisible hand, it is shown that first, this method leads to rejection of the basic structure of society as a subject justice (the Rawlsian assumption), and second, this conception of political justification method with the particular Nozick’s conceptions of Lockean proviso, rejects all egalitarian views. So, Nozick’s presuppositions in the first part of the book are inconsistent with all kinds of states beyond the minimal state.