How did Robert Nozick use John Locke’s state of nature in Anarchy, State, and Utopia?

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick utilizes a hypothetical state of nature to argue that a minimal state is morally justified and that any more extensive state violates individual rights.12

Following John Locke, Nozick assumes that individuals naturally possess rights to life, liberty, and property, including the right to the fruits of their labor and the right to punish those who violate their rights. Nozick argues that because enforcing these rights individually is difficult, people would naturally form "protection associations".1

Through competitive market processes, these associations would evolve until a single, dominant firm emerges that holds a monopoly on the use of force within a territory. Because this firm would protect the rights of everyone in the community without violating anyone’s natural rights during its formation, it constitutes a "minimal state" that is morally legitimate.1

Nozick uses this framework to refute anarchism by showing how a state can arise legitimately, and to refute socialism and modern liberalism by arguing that any state power exceeding this "night watchman" role—such as mandatory taxation for wealth redistribution—is an unjust violation of individual rights.1