Robert Nozick uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain to develop his theories on law and distribution by establishing his libertarian view of justice in chapter 7 of his book " Anarchy, Stat, And Utopia". Wilt Chamberlain, the basketball star, charges fans twenty-five cents to watch him play. Nozick creates a world in which we must assume that the actions that lead to this point, for all people, are right. Chamberlain simply offers his services to those who wish to attend the event. Assuming he continues his show for some time, and that people continue to pay the twenty-five cent rate, Chamberlain could generate a large amount of revenue. The people who paid their twenty-five cents did so freely, and although they were left with less money, Wilt Chamberlain became a very wealthy man. Furthermore, Nozick encourages the use of this example within the desired philosophical and political utopia, and it would be fair to say that Will acquired his earnings in a way that did not violate the rights of another individual. Since Chamberlain's earnings come from a just and distributive starting point, the voluntary support of his fans should also be considered just. However, to fully understand how Nozick draws his conclusions about the validity of Chamberlain's financial gain, it is necessary to understand the framework of the historical and unpatterned lenses through which he views the minimal state. Addressing Zozick's construction of the theory of rights requires a definition of justice, and is important in this philosophical narrative. One's freedom, that is, the ability to do what one wants without the persuasion or coercion of another, is the root of self-ownership (individual rights). Self-ownership also means one's ownership over... the middle of the paper... constitutes injustice. Nosick argues for a state in which the dominant protective agency as the sole form of "government" serves to protect those who choose to freely participate in service. The individual is free to live as long as he does not violate an individual or worsen the conditions of the country for others. Having the right to property does not mean the right to harm, but rather the right to exclude. Just as I would not steal another individual's property (without fear of the protection agency), how is it possible for anyone, including the government, to take earnings from individuals in the form of distribution or taxation? If the right acquisition arises from the right story (whatever form you see fit), then wealth and free spending are simply functions within society with discretion falling under the responsibility of the buyer and seller of goods.