Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, And Utopia

In Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick uses the example of Wilt Chamberlin, a very wealthy basketball player, to show that liberty is incompatible with any patterned theory of distributive justice. According to Nozick there are three sets of rules of justice, defining: How things not previously possessed by anyone may be acquired; How possession may be transferred from one person to another; and What must be done to rectify injustices arising from violations of (1) and (2). First I will argue that the Wilt Chamberlain argument assumes self-ownership and not property rights (the latter is what the pattern theory must deny). Second I will argue that interpreting liberty as self-ownership does bring about conflict of liberty and a patterned theory as long as we do away with a Lockean proviso on initial gain. Lockean Proviso states an individual can create personal property interests in the bounties of nature only so long as "there is enough and as good left in common for others."
The first classification is whether a theory is either historical or ahistorical which is the difference between whether a theory takes into account past circumstances (historical) or not (ahistorical). The more important difference that Nozick makes between opposing theories of distributive justice is among patterned and unpatterned theories. A patterned theory of justice is one in which distributive shares are resolved with some variable. An unpatterned theory would not decide which people get what to something in the world. The best way to clarify an unpatterned theory of justice is to not decide who gets what but by what means who can get what; this is called procedural theory of justice. Nozick's argument against patterned theories of justice is that they are conflicting with liberty and uses Wilt Chamberlain as an example for this