Robert Nozick, in an extract from his book Anarchy, the State and Utopia, presents his ideas on why a government at power should not distribute the wealth of the state among all residents. Nozick is writing primarily in response to John Rawls's A Theory of Justice, in which Rawls focuses on the idea of ​​the state striving to financially improve the lives of those in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view, Nozick sets out various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that led him to arrive at the conclusion he did. This includes Nozick's theory of law. In this article, I will explain how Nozick arrives at the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place, while examining in detail the various major concepts of his theory. Furthermore, I will also give my views on what John Rawls' argument against Nozick's theory could be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl's theory and present detailed reasoning. Nozick introduces his theory by calling a “minimal state” (Nozick 149) the only justifiable state that does not infringe on the rights of the people living in that state. . Nozick, as a libertarian, believes in the freedom of the individual above all else. Nozick says, “There is no single natural dimension, nor any weighted sum or combination of a small number of natural dimensions, which yields the distributions generated in accordance with the principle of law” (Nozick 157). The models on which some sections argue for the distribution of wealth, such as poverty, etc., do not impress Nozick at all. Continuing his belief in individual freedom above all else, Nozick then presents his theory of entitlement, according to which all of a person's possessions play no role in the acquisition of that wealth. An example in today's world that I can think of is that of Bernie Ecclestone, the billion-dollar supreme authority on Formula 1, and his two heir daughters, Tamara and Petra. Both women recently purchased some of the most expensive homes in Los Angeles despite their contribution to their father's running of an entire sport being zero. The principle of justice here will not find any fault since the money they receive will be transferred legally, but this will keep the money in a family where apart from one person no one else has made any contribution. The obscurity in which thousands of talented individuals work while children born into wealthy families enjoy their inheritance is the final error in Nozick's theory that convinces me that John Rawls, with a fair outcome in mind, is the better of two theories..