Thesis: There is a major problem with what Nozick calls time-slice principles; however, not all patterned principled are time-slice principles.

HISTORY AND PATTERN

Nozick distinguished historical from patterned principles of justice. The distinction is simple on the surface, but by the time we reach the end of Nozick's discussion, the two categories have become at least three, perhaps four, and not so easily kept separate. Some of Nozick's statements are hard to interpret, but the following is roughly what Nozick intended.

Current Time-Slice principles assess a distribution at a given moment. We look at an array of outcomes. It does not matter to whom those outcomes attach. For example, on an egalitarian time-slice principle, if the outcomes are unequal, that is all we need to know in order to know we have injustice. We do not need to know who got which outcome, or how they got it. History does not matter at all.

End-State principles say something similar, but without stipulating that the outcomes are time slices. So, for example, an egalitarian end-state principle could say we look at lifetime income; if lifetime incomes are unequal, that is all we need to know. The difference between time-slice and end-state principles is this. Suppose again (as per Chapter 22) the Smiths and Joneses have the same jobs at the same factory, but the Joneses are three years older, started working three years earlier, and continually get pay raises by virtue of their seniority that the Smiths will not get for another three years.