Rawls’s liberal-egalitarian conception of justice has been subjected to a rigorous libertarian critique by his colleague. For Nozick, progressive taxation is like bonded labour and it goes against the principle of non aggression. Like Hayek, he also believes that so called social justice programs only result into corruption. Nozick’s two central claims in his book "Anarchy, State and Utopia" are

a. The minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified

b. Any state more extensive than the minimal state violates people’s rights

2. Nozick’s argument against a more extensive, redistributive state

a. The typical justification for a redistributive state rests on some patterned principle

b. But, patterned principles should be rejected, because

i. “liberty upsets patterns”

ii. “taxation of income from labor is on a par with forced labor”

3. Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of distributive justice:

a. Nozick’s Entitlement Theory is not patterned, but “historical”: the justice of people’s holdings – i.e., whether what people have, they have justly – “depends upon what has actually happened”

b. The theory consists of three principles

i. First principle specifies how unowned things can come to be owned justly

ii. Second principle specifies how (justly owned) things can be transferred justly

iii. Third principle says what to do about unjust acquisitions & unjust transfers

c. According to the theory:

i. A thing is owned justly if it was originally acquired justly & always transferred justly

ii. A person is “entitled” to the resources he or she possesses if and only if he or she acquired these resources through

1. a just original acquisition (as specified by the first principle) OR

2. a just transfer (as specified by the second principle) OR

3. as compensation for previous injustice (as specified by the third principle) 

iii. A given “distribution” of resources is just if everyone is entitled to the resources they possess under the distribution

State does not have any role in distributive justice (welfare state) according to Nozick. The state’s role in property has to be limited only to the extend that state has to see

1) Property is acquired by right means. 

2) Property is inherited or transferred in the right manner.

Thus he gives the concept of regulatory state. He admits that there may be historical injustices. However past should not be stretched too far in the present. If we stretch past too far in the present, it will create more problems. However there is only one situation where Nozick allows state to intervene in man’s property. When a person asserts his right in a way that puts the life of large number of people in danger.

Criticisms

• The first criticism of Nozick could be said to  emphasize procedural justice, but he, like John  Rawls, failed to universalize procedural justice. His theory of justice is suitable only for the  capitalist state. He has over-simplified his  theory of justice, which has made his theory  less effective. On this basis, he becomes a  supporter of privatization and capitalism by  separating the state from the political and the  general public, over which State has no control. Critics refer to Nozick as a ''devotee of oddity''.
• It is said that  Nozick is a ruthless thinker because he says that  one who is poor, is poor because his fate is poor, they are worth that. Critics say that  poverty is not someone''s hobby. Therefore,  poverty alleviation is the duty of the state. Necessary steps should be taken by the state to  break the vicious cycle of poverty. That is why  critics consider this principle of Nozick  inhuman and immoral.