Distributive property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that affirms the legitimate distribution of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources available in a society, the question of their proper distribution often arises. The ideal answer is that public goods should be reasonably distributed so that each individual receives what constitutes a “justified share”; This is where the conflict arises. However, the notion of just distribution is generally the subject of disagreement, as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different views on how property should be fairly distributed. Nozick argues that any form of structured distribution of wealth is inequitable and ultimately reduces individual freedom. Rawls, on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets within a community should be in favor of the less advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that the two men have different ideas about the legitimacy of government redistribution of resources; However, I intend to defend Nozick's theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls's proposal. Nozick's central claim is that any sort of structured distribution will have a significant effect on freedom. First, Nozick's idea of ​​a "structured distribution" must be separated from the notion of an "unstructured distribution." Obviously, structured distribution adheres to a non-specific model. Nozick's own theory itself is modelless, a theory which suggests that each person's acquisition of goods was acquired through legitimate means. Nozick’s conception of “legitimate means” manifests itself through his theory of rights. The theory of law ...... middle of document ...... is achieved when the principle of freedom and difference is promulgated with the veil of ignorance. On the contrary, Nozick argues that Rawls's theory is exactly the kind of structured principle that undermines individual freedom. As an alternative, Nozick proposes his unstructured principle as the ideal distribution of goods in a society. To me, Rawls argues his theory in a way where his principles of justice are not only difficult to implement, but are ultimately extremely insufficient to provide general utility. The veil of ignorance has proven almost impossible and unethical. The difference principle itself is incapable of fairly distributing property because it clearly violates an individual's freedom. Since Rawls's method of distributive justice is rendered unreasonable and ineffective, it leaves us with a clear answer derived from two disjunctions..