Under D2 those who exchanged money for the opportunity to spectate clearly will not have grounds of complaint about Wilt possessing more money than before, as they freely chose to contribute to that inequality. Third parties would not seem to have a claim on the spectator or Wilt, as they were not involved in the transaction. A major premise in the Chamberlain example is that individuals have an absolute right to the property they possess under D1. This premise is, however, quite flawed. Nozick fails to recognize that the things we create are not merely products of labor.
Every commodity is created through human power and the addition of natural resources.
For example, it requires labor to create a house, but homes also require bricks, wood, and metals, none of which are formed from labor alone. Absolute self-ownership does not entail absolute ownership of the products of my labor because those products are not formed merely from my labor. Those cannot be considered as absolutely owned unless Nozick provides a way for one to gain absolute ownership of natural resources. He tries to provide this through his acceptance of a modified form of the Lockean Proviso. However, this fails to provide a justification for absolute ownership that is consistent with Nozick's system.