Distributive justice is concerned with how property, wealth and resources are distributed in a society in a way that is just.
To be just can be interepreted in a number of ways:
Rawls view was that a just society needs to be based on the rights of the individual. Rawls also considered that justice should be fair, favor the least well-off and correct natural imbalances.
Rawls proposed two principles:
"Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all". In other words, we should all enjoy personal freedom, provided this does not impact the freedom of others.
"Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle". In other words, inequalities should not disadvantage the least well off.
Rawls envisaged that the rules governing society should be designed from an "original position" in which people defined the rules assuming they do not know what their real position is in society. Rawls thought that would lead provide a just society.
By contrast, although as for Rawls, Nozick considered that the rights of the individual are most important, he does not consider that there should be distributive justice.
Nozick considered that since the goods in society are already largely distributed that justice should be concerned with who keep these goods, how they should be transferred and what should be done about new goods.