Why did Robert Nozick believe patterned theories of justice would restrict individual liberty?

Robert Nozick argued that patterned theories of justice—which define a just distribution of wealth based on specific criteria like equality—inevitably conflict with individual liberty.1

He contended that any distribution dictated by such patterns would be disrupted by ordinary, voluntary transactions between individuals. To illustrate this, he used the "Wilt Chamberlain" argument: if a society achieves a "just" distribution, it can be immediately upset if people freely choose to pay to watch a talented individual perform, resulting in that person accumulating more wealth than others.1

Nozick concluded that for a state to maintain a specific pattern, it would have to continuously intervene in the lives of its citizens to prevent these "capitalist acts between consenting adults". Consequently, enforcing such theories requires the state to intrude upon the natural rights of individuals to dispose of their property and labor as they see fit, effectively treating mandatory redistribution as a form of "forced labour".12