Compare Nozick's libertarian critique of distributive justice with Rawls's theory of justice.

• A. Nozick advocates a minimal state and just acquisition/exchange, rejecting patterned redistribution; Rawls supports a patterned scheme to improve the least advantaged.
• B. Nozick supports universal basic income; Rawls supports private property rights.
• C. Nozick supports equality of outcome; Rawls supports market freedom.
• D. Nozick advocates heavy taxation; Rawls favors no redistribution.

Answer: (A)

The main contrast this question tests is how two major theories think about how wealth should be distributed and what the state may do to shape that distribution. Nozick argues that justice in holdings comes from just acquisitions and voluntary transfers, and he believes the state should be limited to protecting rights. Because of that, he rejects redistribution that would pattern outcomes or override people’s entitlements. Rawls, by contrast, thinks society should be organized by principles of justice that ensure fair basic structure and, through the difference principle, allow inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged. In short, Nozick defends a minimal state and treatment of acquisitions as just, with no forced redistribution, while Rawls defends a patterned scheme aimed at improving the position of the least well-off. That’s why the option that pairs Nozick’s entitlement framework with anti-patterned redistribution and Rawls’s patterning to help the worst off best captures the comparison.