but his Agrarian Justice proposal is strictly redistributionist

Minimally. The funds for widows and orphans would be. Old age pensions could either be seen as redistribution or forced retirement plans from funds owed. Paine considered payments obligatory because they were based in justice, compensation from the land possessors to the non land possessors for their exclusive use and control of "their" property. It's land title that is redistributionist.

I don't consider More's basic income the same as Paine's. Paine's was a just compensation to a free citizen - More's was the feeding and watering of citizen livestock subject to forced labor. Might as well say that a pack mule gets a basic income. They did at least agree on the inherent injustice of property in land, though I don't think More made the connection between that injustice and a basic income as compensation.

Which is distinct from the right-libertarian notion that people do not deserve sustenance if they don't work on projects the market demands.

To understand right libertarian thought, you first must see how they distinguish between what you deserve and what you have a right to (which I argue is crucial to a non theocratic state). No one deserves cancer, but that doesn't give one a right to rob one's neighbors to pay for treatment. For right libertarians, you earn what you get in free exchange with others, and they object to having those earnings confiscated by force.