One point I take from Nozick’s critique of Rawls is that any distributive scheme that stipulates an ideal end state requires coercion. Given natural micro-level exchanges, any kind of distributive goal will require redistribution of goods, not just initially but in an on-going manner. It is important to recognize this, but it also works against Nozick too. There is no perfect libertarian coercion-free social unit. The market through its own actions will collapse into monopolies without coercion. We are stuck with coercion of some kind to make liberty (and our markets) work at all. The question is not how do we get rid of coercion, but how do we make coercion less onerous. There are many varieties of coercion, spanning from the threat of gulags to eye rolling to gentle nudges. 

Check out all the work in the collection: The Social Unit