> but criticism of wealth inequality is often based on what happens _after_ the wealth is earned too.

IIRC, that's precisely what Nozick is nominally interested in exploring (although he really doesn't).

There at least 2 distinctions going on:

1. whether wealth is acquired with or without exploitation; Nozick uses consent as a proxy for exploitation, which is dubious but predictable given that he's a libertarian

2. whether there are ill-effects to (excessive) wealth regardless of how it was acquired