Write your view here. 2PDs to the best answer.

Nozick has the better case. The libertarian view of government makes more sense than Rawls' liberal view of government. Rawls argues that the Veil of Ignorance will make the social contract fair but how will anyone be able to create a fair contract without knowing the demographics of the society? This philosophy could backfire and create a government that no one agrees, it would be better to have a good understanding of the people being governed and create a just and fair government that caters to everyone. Nozick's three rules for libertarian legislation is fair to everyone. People around the world have had major moral issues such as gay rights which would be solved because of libertarianism. Nozick also states the Principle of Self-possession which protects our human rights.

The main objects to libertarianism say that the poor need money more therefore the rich should be taxed more and taxing is done by the consent of the governed in a democracy. However the idea of self-possession is a fundamental right and fundamental rights are absolute in a democracy and can not be voted on. Another objection is that the successful owe a debt to society that they must pay back. The debt that they may have accrued is cancelled out by becoming successful and earning money honestly which is an act that society values. People's service to society balances the debt. 

Nozick's argument is thorough and is backed by the solid foundation of its three rules. Rawls' argument for liberalism is vague and relies upon the ideas and moral compass of the users which creates conflict and instability.

I believe that Rawls had the better case because by making a society in which no one knows where we would stand in this society we would want to make it as equal as we can get Incase we don’t get the better end of the stick. Society as a whole would be a lot better as long as the veil of ignorance was used in order to make that society. People would be more wary about how this society would work if they aren’t sure where their social standing or anything else is. The reason why I don’t think that Nozick had the better case is because his method would not secure that society would be fair and at least with the veil of ignorance more people would be better off and ensure that most people in the society would at least be able to live comfortably because of the veil. So yes I believe that Rawls had the better Case. :)