In the Wilt Chamberlain example, people who give their twenty-five cents acquired the money justly and they are willing to give it to Wilt which means they justly transfer the money to Wilt, as long as Wilt doesn’t pickpockets these people and doesn’t violate the first two principles in holdings, he is entitled to own the $250,000. I will discuss more about his just entitlement in the rest of this essay. Different from Rawls, Nozick’s entitlement theory is unpatterned. The way to interpret an unpatterned theory of justice is to not determine who is to get what, but what means who can get what. It doesn’t require that the distribution are resulted from just acquisitions, transfers and rectifications that are patterned, people may be entitled to things got by chance or gift. Under pattern theories, people should fairly distribute the sum total of goods in patterns corresponding to worth, need, etc. However Nozick believes that things are never collected into a sum total to be allocated by a central distributing authority. Because he doesn’t believe that there is a central distributor, and no one is entitled to control all the resources and decide how they should be doled out. The Wilt Chamberlain example is an attempt to show that patterned principles of wealth distribution are conflicting with liberty. Nozick assumes that the favoured distribution in society is D1 and the new distribution of $250,000 is D2. If each person freely exchanges some of his D1 with Wilt and D1 was a just distribution, according to Nozick’s theory, if a certain