In his essay, "Rights and the Market," Peter Singer proffers a critique of Nozick's libertarian view of social justice.l Nozick's view is that any system of social justice that forces a redistribution of goods is immoral. The only just distribution is that which results from uncoerced interaction between individuals. Therefore, if such interaction leaves certain unfortunate individuals in need, the situation is lamentable but not unjust. If more affluent others select to aid unfortunate individuals, that is commendable; if they do not, however, no one's fights are violated. 2 Singer claims, however, that Nozick's concept of "market justice" is inadequate for a number of reasons. Two of these reasons are: 1) Nozick's view would allow for the violation of other, more basic fights; and 2) Nozick's view has little to support it.
In regard to the first objection, Singer points out that Nozick's concept of market justice assumes an extremely narrow view of rights; i.e., one's fights are not violated if and only if one is not interfered with by others. That such a view is controversial is shown by the fact that certain basic fights, such as the right to life, may be rights of recipience, a A right of recipience entails not only that one's life should not be interfered with, but also that if an individual finds himself in a lifethreatening situation, (s)he should be aided by society. For instance, a hemophiliac qould, according to Singer, have a right to the blood necessary to sustain his life. Clearly, according to Singer, a market system of social justice cannot guarantee that such rights will be protected. It is, of course, possible that the unrestricted functioning of the market may result in providing the requisite amount of blood to sustain hemophiliacs. For instance, if hemophiliacs organize a fund to pay premium prices for blood, then the supply may be adequate. It may also be, however, that hemophiliacs as a group, or certain disadvantaged individuals who are hemophiliacs, simply will not be able to pay for all the blood they need. If not, then their supply is in serious jeopardy on the market model. If so, and if their right to a supply of blood as a necessity of life is a right of recipience, the market model does not safeguard that right.
Another right Singer claims cannot be guaranteed on the market model is an individual's being free from the influence of the market model in their transactions with others. That is, individuals should be free from the effects of seeing