Look this has ceased to be a constructive argument. You did take it out of context, I never said they could not give it to who ever they wanted to.
By your logic, a person cannot do whatever they want to do with their own wealth. So I guess you don't believe in freedom then??!
No, this does not follow from my logic, since I never said I agreed that a person should be allowed to keep all and only that wealth which he has earned. That was your claim, not mine.
But it's apparent that this is going nowhere. I just wanted to point out that a natural consequence of what you said was something that you likely did not intend or agree with. Seems to me the correct response is to admit that you misspoke and try to fix your claim so that it more accurately reflects your opinions, but instead you just want to pretend that this unfortunate consequence really doesn't follow from your clearly stated principle.
As far as my own opinion, I'm fairly sympathetic to Nozick's ideas on what constitutes a just distribution of wealth (more or less that the history consists entirely of just transactions from previously just states --- if it was given to you by someone who had a right to hold it, then you have a right to hold it, with no nonsense about whether you earned it or not).
But there's no need to go into Nozick's views nor continue this discussion. Either you didn't get my point about why your statement was evidently incorrect or you refuse to admit error, but in either case, we've reached an impasse.