Rawlsian 'Preferred Distribution' and slavery.

"There's no fundamentally "right" distribution deviations against which are "theft". There are only various preferred distributions."

..it is important that we think of money (income) only as a medium of exchange and focus on the actual resources, goods, and labor that are being exchanged.

Because what is really being said here is not that someone has a right to someone else's income, but that they have a right to someone else's labor....slavery.

By this logic, there was no slavery pre-1860, there was only a change in the 'preferred distribution'...which is absurd. If you agree that it was slavery, then you don't agree with this logic of 'preferred distribution'...if you disagree that it was slavery and only a change of 'preferred distribution' then you have to atleast acknowledge what it really is...you can't redefine slavery as "preferred distribution".

You either have a right to whatever property you can get voluntarily by acting, or you have a right to whatever property you can get involuntarily by other people acting for you. The second example is slavery, and it is exactly what Rawlsianism is.