In his book “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, Nozick states that all human beings have some fundamental rights, such as life, health, liberty and property. And these rights cannot be taken away from citizens. The state, he argues, has no moral authority over someone's rightfully acquired property. He argues that if a person has rightly claimed his property, the state has no jurisdiction to take it away from him. The problem with all distributive principles of justice, in his view, is that they violate some basic human rights and are therefore inherently unjust. Now the next question that arises is what rightful ownership of property means. According to Nozick, if a person is born owns property justly, that is, without infringing the rights of others, then his property is just. So, essentially, whether or not a distribution of property is depends on how it occurred. Discussing model-based theories, Nozick is of the opinion that such principles deny people's fundamental rights because they interfere with people's right to take part in free and fair transactions. if they wish. A modeled theory is one that defines specific principles that govern the distribution of wealth “along with some natural dimensions.” And to maintain that model, the individual's rights to freedom must be violated. *******So no one can forcibly transfer wealth from one individual to another. Therefore, any principle that follows any model of wealth distribution is intrinsically unjust. Thus, according to Nozick, any modeled theory leads to injustice as it violates an individual's fundamental rights of freedom and liberty. However, Nozick believes that the only case in which someone's wealth can be transferred by force... middle of paper... wealth and property. Furthermore, the historical nature of his arguments is a very weak point of his thesis. On the other hand, while Rawls convincingly argues for the redistribution of wealth by focusing on the poor, his arguments assume that people can be forced to act as rational, disinterested individuals. Even if he tries, these notions are highly impractical. It may prove impossible to institutionalize a system that can force people to act rationally. His "veil of ignorance" may be a good way to interpret the justice of fairness, but I see no way to actually apply this principle. There is no meaningful way in which people can shed their individual identities. Furthermore, Rawls advocates the “maximizing the minimum” distributive approach. It can be argued that if equal opportunities exist then why not try to maximize overall wealth.