How did Robert Nozick’s minimal-state theory differ from modern liberalism?

Robert Nozick’s minimal-state theory differs from modern liberalism primarily in its scope of government authority and its conception of distributive justice.12

The Minimal State vs. Modern Liberalism

Nozick argued for a "night watchman" state, whose powers are strictly limited to protecting citizens against violence, theft, and fraud. In contrast, modern liberalism—often associated with thinkers like John Rawls—contends that the state should actively promote individual freedom by removing obstacles such as poverty, disease, and discrimination. To achieve this, modern liberals support state intervention to regulate economic activity, provide social services like education and health care, and redistribute wealth to ensure greater equality.13

Divergent Views on Justice

These differences stem from conflicting theories of justice:
* Entitlement Theory: Nozick proposed that any distribution of wealth is just if it arises from legitimate means, such as voluntary exchange or original acquisition. He argued that mandatory taxation for social programs is unjust, likening it to "forced labour".41
* Liberal Egalitarianism: Modern liberals argue that the state should ensure the least well-off are as well-off as possible. Nozick rejected this, asserting that enforcing such patterns requires gross intrusions into individual liberty, effectively forbidding "capitalist acts between consenting adults".4