ossible---for the poor, because everyone is poor and would therefore join in creating such social funding. In a society in which everyone were rich, the contract would similarly reflect that specific set of economic need, or lack of need. In such an all-rich society, there would likely be a contract in which minimal or no public funding for higher education would be available, simply because the people could provide their own private funding.
However, in a society which is made up of both very rich and very poor people, the lack of such an ignorance principle would result either in unresolved conflict, or a contract which would favor the rich because the rich generally control the society and public funding decisions. Acting in their own self-interest, without the application of the ignorance principle, the rich would create a contract in which the poor were not afforded the opportunity for a higher education. As Rawls writes, "Rational contractors," bound by the ignorance principle and not knowing whether they would be among the rich or the poor, "would seek to avoid the risk of turning out to be on the bottom" (91) in the question of funding higher education.
Nozick's theory of justice is based on the notion that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" (97). To Nozick, unlike with Rawls, it is ethically relevant that the rich have gathered unto themselves, by one means or another, the wealth they have, and, therefore, they have a right to determine how that money is spent, or not spent, and on whom, in the area of educational funding or in any other area.
To Nozick, the liberty of the individual to decide what to do or not to do with his or her property should be the primary consideration in the distribution of funding for any purpose. To Nozick, Rawls' approach would be unjust becau
...