How did Robert Nozick’s theory of justice differ from John Rawls’s theory?

Robert Nozick’s theory of justice, presented in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, differs fundamentally from the liberal egalitarianism of John Rawls. While Rawls argues that social and economic inequalities are just only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society, Nozick rejects such "patterned" theories of distributive justice.123

Nozick’s entitlement theory posits that any distribution of holdings is just if it arises from legitimate means, such as original acquisition or voluntary transfer. He argues that Rawls’s approach requires the state to interfere with individual liberty and redistribute goods without the owners' consent, which violates private property rights.143

For Nozick, the state should be limited to a "minimal state" that enforces basic rights, whereas Rawls advocates for a state with the power to ensure that the least well-off are as prosperous as possible. Nozick famously illustrated his critique with the "Wilt Chamberlain" argument, suggesting that any patterned distribution would inevitably be disrupted by voluntary, unobjectionable transactions between individuals.14