In a mixed economy, however, there is a presumption that government must go beyond this limited role to improve distributive justice in society.
A somewhat parallel issue has been raised in distributive justice – must society allocate resources, broadly construed, to support the group and cultural identities of its members?
In addition to society-wide distributive processes, energy justice has an important micro-scale aspect relating to the lived experiences of people.
Nozick condemned "distributive justice" as implying that society has resources to distribute, whereas only individuals do, and are entitled to hold or transfer them.
The importance of meeting specific health needs will vary depending on facts about a society, and a distributive principle must leave room for such variation.
Moreover, arguably some institutions, perhaps governments, have as one of their defining ends or functions, to ensure conformity to principles of distributive justice in the wider society.
As Becker notes, however, such a comprehensive account would have limited appeal in justifying a distributive scheme in a pluralistic society (2005, 35).
On the other hand, minimalist conceptions of the institution of government might stop short of advocating a major role for government in applying principles of distributive justice in the wider society.
There is a category of institutions in respect of which the distinction between group-based individual injustices and injustices at the institutional level collapses, namely, institutions that have as a defining purpose to redress large-scale distributive injustices in the wider society, i.e. governments.
So no matter how much wealth there is, there are still distributive choices to make in this society.
