In a way, Rawls got it right with his veil of ignorance. But where he missteps is that people in real life aren't faced with the true veil of ignorance proposed by Rawls. Instead, they are faced with branching probabilities from the actual present moment - many of which will land people with similar fortunes as they hold currently.

Which means that, at any given point in time, for most of us, the best society is in fact probably somewhere between Rawls or Nozick.

But there is no (and cannot be any) final answer to what literally "is" the "best" society. It all just comes down to what individual people prefer. Which in turn, largely comes down to people's individual circumstances in the current moment and foreseeable future for that person.

And in that regard, broadly speaking, people with more wealth and power at present will probably tend towards tolerating a more unequal (but also more laissez faire) society, whereas people with less wealth and power at present will probably tend towards demanding more equality, and a larger social safety net - more like the Rawlsian ideal.

Do to the way power tends to aggregate in the hands of only a select few, more people will probably usually prefer the latter. But that doesn't make it the "better" or more "moral" solution in a universal sense - since there is no universal perspective, and therefore no universal expression of preference (as Rawls seems to have understood).

"Better for more people" means exactly that - but also only that. "Better for more people" doesn't mean "better for everyone", or better from a hypothetical (i.e. imaginary) universal perspective.