You should see some of the stuff I've had to read in studying about justice. I do sincerely appreciate your earnestness. I hope you can stomach one last, lengthy, comment from me.

I try (however unsuccessfully) to strike a balance between language to which non-philosophers can relate and making an argument that an academic philosopher must respect. I think that most of the complexity in my writing comes from distinguishing this approach to justice from those based on beliefs (immaterial truths)--and the implications of that for justice. Above all, I try to be as accurate and purely rational as possible because its strict rationality is what distinguishes this approach to justice. Given the comprehensiveness of justice in human relations, I think there's just a limit to how simple and easy to comprehend any attempt to explain any approach to justice can be.

Yet, for individuals, in this approach to justice avoiding acting unjustly is simply this: when effecting any choice, do not co-opt or otherwise preempt the capacity to choose of any other person. That boils down to a handful of absolute prohibitions: no killing, harming, coercing stealing, or manipulating (which includes lying, cheating, etc.). Anyone who is refraining from any such actions to get what that person wants in this world is being 'just enough'.

Many philosophers have benefited from "popularizers' who related the original work to 'the masses'. I don't have (to this point) even one of those.