Final answer:
Robert Nozick uses the Wilt Chamberlain analogy to criticize John Rawls' view of natural assets and the principles of distributive justice. He challenges the idea of wealth redistribution, preferring a minimal state and an entitlement theory of justice.
Step-by-step explanation:
In criticizing Rawls' view of natural assets, Robert Nozick employs an analogy to challenge the principles outlined in Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Nozick's critique comes in the form of the 'Wilt Chamberlain argument', where he questions the legitimacy of redistributive justice by illustrating how a series of voluntary transactions can lead to an unequal distribution of wealth without any injustice.
According to Nozick, if people choose to pay to see Chamberlain play basketball and he ends up wealthy as a result, this does not contravene principles of justice. Designed as a counter to Rawls' idea that the distribution of wealth should always benefit the least advantaged, Nozick argues for a minimal state and prompts us to consider if redistributive taxation for the welfare of others is just.
Rawls, in contrast, begins with the notion that society should be a cooperative system for mutual advantage, proposing that we approach our societal structure from an original position behind a veil of ignorance. His Difference Principle calls for a society where inequalities are arranged to the benefit of the least advantaged. Nozick, on the other hand, is skeptical of state-enforced redistribution and believes in the entitlement theory of justice that focuses on just acquisition, transfer, and rectification of injustice.