Rawls vs. Nozicks

Entitlement Theory. Stated simply, the theory states that "any distribution of “holdings,” as he calls them, no matter how unequal, is just if (and only if) it arises from a just distribution through legitimate means. One legitimate means is the appropriation of something that is un-owned in circumstances where the acquisition would not disadvantage others. A second means is the voluntary transfer of ownership of holdings to someone else. A third means is the rectification of past injustices in the acquisition or transfer of holdings. According to Nozick, anyone who acquired what he has through these means is morally entitled to it. Thus the “entitlement” theory of justice states that the distribution of holdings in a society is just if (and only if) everyone in that society is entitled to what he has."

Any distribution is only just if it arises from a distribution of legitimate means. 1) The act of taking something (with no disadvantage to others) that is un-owned a. 2) The voluntary transfer of an object to someone else. (an agreement is setup) b. You sell someone your car with an agreement of monthly payments. 3) the rectification of past injustices in the attainment or transfer of holdings. c. You agree to sell your car to someone with an agreement of monthly payments setup. The purchaser fails to pay the payments so you take back the car. You are considered morally allowed to own that car.

According to Nozick, anyone who acquired what he has through these means is morally entitled to it.
Also, distribution of holdings is allowed only if everyone in that society is entitled to what he has.

Principle of Justice: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.