First, thanks for that coherent, concise summary of two important contributions on the topic of the greatest importance to humanity: how society should be governed. (The academic debate initiated by the publication of Rawls's book, which included Nozick's regurgitation of Locke's ideas about justice, was the subject of the Survey of the Literature in my Master's Thesis, in political economy, focusing on money/distributive justice: 1988, Atlanta University--now Clark Atlanta University.)

If I may, I thought this might be of interest: an alternative approach to justice that does not have as its starting point any 'immaterial truth', whether equality, or a priori 'Rights', such as Natural Rights, or 'it's how God wants us to act', or any other. Rather, it starts from the observation (from Warren J. Samuels) that human beings have no choice but to effect choices, i.e., choose among perceived alternatives and take action to bring that choice to fruition. That makes choosing integral to being human, giving us a starting point within material existence for justice: an 'ought' from 'is', as Hume would say.

In terms of the economy, it provides a guaranteed minimum income (for all adult citizens) that a person could actually live on without redistributing anything. It also provides a way to eliminate taxes/public debt for funding government (all government, from local to national), removing that part of the issue in deciding how the money allotted for the offices of government should be spent (the allotted amount to be determined forevermore by the current per capita rate of total government spending). That such decisions are made in a just--democratic--political process is necessary and sufficient for their legitimacy.

If curious: "Can't Get Any Simpler" is a "3 min read" here in Medium with links to articles about the idea from various perspectives (none of it behind the paywall).