John Rawls, from A Theory of Justice

JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS.
    Principles of justice are the object of an original agreement entered into on a "fair playing field," so to speak.  That field is created in the "original position" under a "veil of ignorance."

    The principles chosen will be
a.  EQUAL LIBERTY
b.  DIFFERENCE

    The first principle will always take priority over the second.

The first principle implies that one cannot limit liberty for the sake of anything but more liberty.  Further, you cannot limit liberty for economic gain.  IT IS IN NO ONE'S BEST INTEREST TO BE OPPRESSED.  To limit liberty is to oppress.

    The difference prinicple provides for an egalitarian conception of justice.
        A principle of redress - offered by the second principle.
        A principle of reciprocity - offered by the notion that people don't want to be better off if it means that others are made worse off.
        A principle of fraternity - one wouldn't want more advantages unless it would be to the benefit of those who are less well off.

    The difference principle is designed to soften or eliminate in some acceptable (and predetermined) way the economic/social differences between people so that any difference in such status is accounted for by making sure that any such benefit or advantage works to the betterment or benefit of the least advantaged.

DISTRIBUTION BY PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS REACHED FROM A FAIR STARTING POINT.

Robert Nozick, from Anarchy, State and Utopia

AN ENTITLEMENT THEORY - note affinity to Locke

The simple fact, for Nozick, is that the person who creates a thing is entitled to it.  Things don't "come into the word" without being attached to people who are entitled to them.  A distribution scheme like that of Rawls seems to make it appear that things in some sense "appear from nowhere."  And they don't.  They are made by individuals.

Consider the example of the famous basketball player who makes more money than all the other players.  Assume that his source of unequal income is spectators who voluntarily deposit extra money earmarked just for the famous player.  Do the other players have a right to what spectators have freely given to the famous player?

Patterned principles of justice (like that of Rawls - principles that have some sort of set outcome) will, ultimately, cause constant interference in people's lives.  They will direct where resources and money can and will be spent, who will get what, and why.

Furthermore, why must we assume that people will want to fit the pattern?

It is certain that winners "get in the way" of losers.  But this doesn't mean that they get in the way of the losers in the sense that they have stolen something from the losers.  The winners aren't taking anything from the losers that the losers ever had a right to have.

DISTRIBUTION BY ENTITLEMENT