NYT OP on Rawls v.s. Nozick

Came across this article about Rawls' "social liberalism" v.s. Nozick's "laissez-faire liberalism" by Amia Srvinivasan. I loved it. It's very thoughtful material that'll probably help those doing the Chamberlain paper.

As someone who's for distributive justices, I am more than a little piqued by Nozick's arguments. I thought Srinivasan made a lot of sense. She says someone pro-Nozick must be able to give unequivocal postive responses to the following four questions:

1.  Is any exchange between two people in the absence of direct physical compulsion by one party against the other (or the threat thereof) necessarily free?
2. Is any free (not physically compelled) exchange morally permissible?
3. Do people deserve all they are able, and only what they are able, to get through free exchange?
4. Are people under no obligation to do anything they don’t freely want to do or freely commit themselves to doing?

It's a short read, highly enourage yous to leaf through it.