How does Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory decide whether a distribution of property is just?

Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory posits that the justice of a distribution of property is determined not by its final pattern or outcome, but by the historical process through which the holdings were acquired. According to Nozick, a distribution is just if and only if every individual is entitled to their holdings, having acquired them through legitimate means.1

He identifies three primary ways to achieve this entitlement:

• Original Acquisition: The appropriation of previously unowned resources in a manner that does not disadvantage others.1
• Voluntary Transfer: The consensual exchange or gifting of property from one person to another.1
• Rectification: The correction of past injustices that occurred during previous acquisitions or transfers.1

Nozick argues that any distribution arising from these legitimate processes is just, regardless of how unequal it may be. He rejects theories that attempt to enforce specific patterns of wealth, contending that such interventions necessarily infringe upon individual liberty by forbidding voluntary, "capitalist acts between consenting adults". Ultimately, for Nozick, justice is found in the legitimacy of the transactions themselves rather than in the resulting social or economic state.1