Equality of opportunity, p. 235

No centralized process judges people’s use of the opportunities they had; that is not what the processes of social cooperation and exchange are for.
Why not?
What are they for?
What about education decisions?
Is there another possible view?
Atomism

what exactly does N mean by equality of opportunity?
certainly not simply considering all applicants for position, e.g.
achieve by worsening situation of better off or improving that of worse off
presumably means providing education, food, etc. that ppl need to have a chance
providing equal education, for example, or access based on testing
latter also involves "seizing resources" of better off -- true?
what is the typical situation in which equality of opportunity arises?
interesting thing is that those who oppose (private) affirmative action programs argue that employer (eg) is obligated to give something to them which employer does not wish to give
should private parties engage in affirmative action?  Nozick would say if they want to; he simply opposes social requirement

social structure/legitimate expectations
"convincing persons each to devote some of their holdings to achieving it"
better off person impedes the progress of the worse off, p. 237
but they impede only by "being more alluring"
whatever is society's to give may be given to worse off; Nozick would say nothing is society's to give
suitor -- difference from employment/education
sphere of private decisionmaking:  N wishes to make it encompass everything

Workers' control, p. 250

Why don't workers buy up factories?
Can't have mixed capitalism/socialism
market forces require maximization of profit
not everyone can live in the society they want to live in; it's more complicated than Nozick makes it out

Exploitation

Marx's definition of exploitation: seizure of product

Exploitation in any society

Not all exploitation is bad - right to decide what is done with social surplus

issue is who decides what to do with it

workers have no choice but to sell labor power to capitalist
Do they have a choice?

fn. page 254 -- what is Marx's answer?  capitalists got their money by tearing the peasants from the land

What if they did have a choice? - public/private sector (East/West Germany) - would this show that workers in private sector were not being exploited?
answer must be yes; on Marx's theory either they would go to work in public sector where they would be paid full value of their product, or public sector is also exploitative

but this is a side issue; real question is what society should look like, who should decide what to do with the surplus

p. 257, how would Marx respond to the idea that one machine produces product that is more valuable than the other?
- can't happen or more socially necessary labor time
- we can't resolve this in the abstract

the big knot, p. 259
or overproduction

Marx:  amount of socially necessary labor time will depend on whether all of the product can be sold

Nozick says therefore the key concept of socially necessary labor time is defined in terms of the market

Why will the capitalist produce less linen if not all can be sold for $5 eg.?

Doesn't follow that the market explains value of product

isn't it still true that the amount of labor in the object has some explanatory power?

Marx says that market value fluctuates around cost of production

what if price of product goes below its cost of production?
price of product is determined by its cost of production (on average) - i.e. a high price is much higher than COP, low price much lower

determination of price by cost of production is equivalent to determination of price by amount of labor

Voluntary Exchange

Whether one's actions are voluntary depends on whether others had the right to act as they did

choice of working or starving:  is work voluntary?

depends on rights

compulsory giving vs. individual giving

Summary on Nozick

Emphasis on nonviolation of individual rights; sees this as only legitimate function of the state
Rights as side constraints
Has particular notion of rights but this is unargued for
Key features of theory: absolute priority of (negative) liberty; focus on individual rather than society in systemic sense;
Any infringement of liberty is unqualifiedly impermissible; this includes property rights.

Having a Say Over What Affects You
depends on prior obligations; what you would have agreed to before people agreed to benefit you
Inequalities in political power
minimal state as undesirable target
need independent justification of policies