Why would Robert Nozick reject Rawls' view?
Because resource equality can only ensure a numerically fair distribution of
resources, whereas what is necessary is having a sufficient amount of
resources for a content life.
Because people naturally will create inequality through free exchange, even
if only through gift giving. Therefore, it is unsustainable.
Because people are naturally unequal and if inequality originates from that
natural inequality then it is morally good
Because a position of impartiality results in one rejecting the plurality of
different views and instead establishing one's own worldview as the only
"good".
