How would Nozick's Libertarian Justice, Rawls' Justice as Fairness, and Mill's

Utilitarian Justice address income inequality within a society?

Income inequality refers to the uneven distribution of income within a population,

which is often accompanied by wealth inequality, the uneven distribution of wealth.
Industrialization and globalization is one of the major factors that worsen the
issue of income inequality as they led to a significant economic growth but the
benefits were not evenly distributed, leading to a widening gap between the rich
and the poor. Nozick's Libertarian Justice, Rawls' Justice as Fairness, and Mill's
Utilitarian Justice are theories offers a different perspective on what constitutes
justice and how it should be achieved in society; while all three theories provide
frameworks for understanding justice and fairness, they differ in their approaches
to the issue of income inequality. Robert Nozick's concept of libertarian justice,
states that individuals have a right to property as long as they acquire it without
violating the rights of others; any distribution of resources, regardless of its
inequality, is fair and just if it comes from fair distribution through legal
means. Therefore, Nozick's theory may not take a direct position regarding the
issue of income inequality, but rather challenges the notion that income inequality
is inherently unfair. For example, if someone became wealthy through legitimate
transactions, such as becoming a successful entrepreneur, Nozick would not see this
inequality as unjust at all.

Moreover, the concept of justice of John Rawls, called "Justice as Fairness",

emphasizes the importance of equal opportunities which can alleviate income
inequality by ensuring equal opportunities for all. The theory focuses on two basic
principles: the principle of freedom and the principle of equality; where the
latter is further divided into "fair equality of opportunity" and the "principle of
difference". Considering the concept of fair equality of opportunity, the theory
suggests that in order to alleviate the issue of income inequality, all job
positions and opportunities should be available for everyone regardless of their
social status; advocating for equal access to wealth and income regardless of one's
initial circumstances. On the other hand, the difference principle would consider
an unequal distribution of wealth and income if such differences favor the status
of disadvantaged members of society. In its essence, economic inequality is
considered justified only if it leads to a compensative benefits for everyone,
especially to the most disadvantaged; an example is through initiatives like
financial aids to support the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Lastly, John Stuart Mill's concept of utilitarian justice revolves around the
utilitarian principle, which asserts that actions are morally right if they
contribute to the general well-being of humanity. Regarding the problem of income
inequality, Mill's utilitarian framework indicates that actions should aim to
maximize overall happiness, therefore, if income inequality causes widespread
discontent, it will be considered unfair.
Mill also pointed out the injustice of individuals' life prospects being
determined primarily by the circumstances of their birth rather than their
efforts, so he is likely to support policies that reduce income inequality by
rewarding achievement and effort rather than inherited privilege. In essence, the
theory proposes to address income inequality through social reforms that emphasizes
the importance of meritocracy and fairness in the distribution of wealth as a means
of reducing income disparities.