Would you be willing to share what they are alongside what they mean to you and what your first guess would be and why?

Edit: At the risk of this site turning into Stack Overflow (ie. do my work for me vs. a repository of knowledge) which admittedly I've used the site mentioned for comparably similar purpose... I'll give it my best guess.

Three notions. Acquisition and Transfer (interestingly separate notions, the former being "unowned" which doesn't mean "unused", "uninhabited", or otherwise "unneeded".), and Injustice (in regards to the first two, blatant theft?). Each with the context of "justice". Therefore, if there is "justice in Transfer" there is no other Acquisition and the third notion is redundant. Though, I doubt that was in the plan otherwise there wouldn't be three to begin with. Bearing in mind the nature of "how it works" it would seem either the 3rd is most important if a majority or large enough minority deems it so, otherwise, by all forms of Darwinism or in other words "being a prick" or "chasing the paper" as it goes, it would naturally be the first, closely followed by the second as those subject to those in charge of the majority would demand that at least their own trades and property be protected. Depends who you ask, who's in charge, and what's "going on" as it would be.

Sure thing. In regards to distributive justice, the three main principals are
1) justice in acquisition - which is about the initial acquisition of holdings and how a person justly acquires rights to something previously unowned
2) justice in transfer - which covers how a person transfers these holding rights to someone else
3) the rectification of injustice in holdings- the principle of dealing with holdings that are unjustly acquired (rectification of violations of the other two principals).

Nozick believed for a person to be entitled to their property, the ownership must have satisfied all 3 principals.

We were asked this exact question in class (I am an online student so don't have much interaction with other students) , and we're told there is no right or wrong answer as it is a personal belief as to which (if any) is more important.

I based my own answer on nozicks belief that ownership must satisfy all 3 principals therefore one is not more important than the others. This however
is the first philosophy course I have taken, and am still learning to think critically and am asking the question here to see other peoples opinions in a philosophical discussion to try and broaden my critical thinking.

Thanks!

I based my own answer on nozicks belief that ownership must satisfy all 3 principals therefore one is not more important than the others. This however
is the first philosophy course I have taken, and am still learning to think critically and am asking the question here to see other peoples opinions in a philosophical discussion to try and broaden my critical thinking. — Jasmine

If you're just starting out, there are a couple of online peer reviewed philosophy encyclopaedias that are amazing. SEP and IEP. Here's a link to SEP's article on Nozick and here's a link to IEP's article on Nozick. Both contain sections on his theory of distributive justice.

Given what you've said:

Nozick believed for a person to be entitled to their property, the ownership must have satisfied all 3 principals. — Jasmine

Do you believe that Nozick thinks that it is possible for someone to satisfy all three conditions regarding one item of property but still fail for that being a "just holding" of it, or do you believe it's the case that if someone satisfies all three, they are therefore entitled to hold it and they must satisfy all three? In other words, are all three independent necessary conditions or are all three independent necessary conditions and when they all apply to the same holding they are jointly sufficient?

How that might relate to the "are they more important" question, for one understanding of importance anyway, is that failing each (if Nozick is right) stops a holding being just, so none is more important than the other on that basis alone.

I based my own answer on nozicks belief that ownership must satisfy all 3 principals therefore one is not more important than the others. This however — Jasmine

So it seems we have the same intuition regarding that bit; in terms of the logic, it seems that none is more important than the other.

However (and this is a leftist criticism of Nozick), just because they're all necessary doesn't mean they're all as easy to fail. If you grant that all three must apply to a holding for that holding to be just, if it were the case that most chains of property transfer and initial acquisition began with an unjust initial acquisition event (say, forced expropriation), and it were the case that the whole chain needed to be just for a holding to be just, then any holding which derives from an unjust initial acquisition would be unjust by that metric regardless of whether the most recent transfer in that chain was just. EG: if you steal my computer at knifepoint then give it to a charity, the first is coerced but the second may not be. Is the charity's holding of my computer just by that metric? If so - the chain is very forgetful, it would be just for the charity to sell on stolen property, if not - then any acquisition which derives from a history of exploitation (slavery, colonialism), would be unjust. Or a theoretical problem regarding which parts of the chain are relevant, if it's not the whole chain.

Edit: that word "coerced" in the example I think is quite important, what counts as a coercive event in Nozick? What do you think of that notion of coercion (again, more left critical questions about him)?

A general criticism of Nozic might be built on his reliance on rights - see .

After all, why should property be central to our concerns of justice?

But for me a better way to build don Rawls is found in Martha Nussbaum: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/

While very interesting, that actually doesn't answer the OP.

1) justice in acquisition - which is about the initial acquisition of holdings and how a person justly acquires rights to something previously unowned
2) justice in transfer - which covers how a person transfers these holding rights to someone else
3) the rectification of injustice in holdings- the principle of dealing with holdings that are unjustly acquired (rectification of violations of the other two principals). — Jasmine

I would say 3. Our concept of justice may evolve over time and as such would have to be rectified, which is the only venue open to amend existing injustices. The other two only ensure justice moving forward from the present.

While very interesting, that actually doesn't answer the OP. — Benkei

It answers the question indirectly, by pointing out that it's the wrong question. Nozic treats rights as constraints on how we might proceed towards our goals. Nussbaum treats rights as worthy goals. Nozic's libertarian approach fails to take into account the variety of human experiences; he emphasises the individual at the expense of social units such as families or communities. The poverty of that approach can be seen in the cataclysmic death rate from Covd 19 in 'merica, were the individual is at liberty not to mask up or self isolate, at the expense of the community.

The question is obviously asked to test a person's understanding of Nozick, so you should stick to the question.

Your reply is like saying, "you should use Einstein's relativity theory" when someone asks "what does a Newtonian description of celestial bodies look like?"

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Thanks everyone. After further thought, I think the first principle is the most important. Because without the initial acquisition, the other two principles would not be needed as there would be nothing to transfer, and nothing to rectify. What do you think?

That works as an answer.