James A. Hammerton in the “ A Critique of Libertarianism” said that not all voluntary exchanges are just as the exchanges can have consequence on third parties, who might not have consented to the exchange. It contradicts the theory from Nozick that the just transfer of goods is a voluntary transfer from the rightful owner to another person, and without mention about the third parties. In additon, as Nozick said that property right is inviolable, it means that any violations should be compensated for. But in real world that may not be the case as it will be impossible for everyone who get benefits from the government compensate to those to contribute the fund. James also believe that the operation of the free market should be come along with some social rules. He further comments that the full unrestricted right to property, that is, to do whatever we can provided that there is no violation of other people’s rights, will finally lead to some reduction of liberty, mainly for the people who does not have property and have to rely on the assistance of others. Morever, Nozick’s comparison of income tax to forced labour has been attached by a number of critics who question the legitimacy of treating the two as remotely equivalent. Nozick’s reliance on Locke’s theory of individual property may be wrong. Locke argues that we acquire ownership over a thing by mixing our labour with in, but I am wonder whether or not it can apply to natural resources. If I apply my labours to