Reddit mentions of Free Market Fairness

You may want to check out Free Market Fairness by John Tomasi. It's a bit academic (but you seem fine with that) attempt to build a research program based on bridging what Tomasi calls the "High Liberal" and "Classical Liberal" or Libertarian positions. Essentially he wants to create a political perspective that give weight to social justice issues while also assigning a great deal of importance to personal economic freedom.

I'm not finished the book but it's a really good primer on the background of the different branches of Liberal philosophy and clearly lays out what the main points of contention are between them. It doesn't have any solid answers, but does raise a lot of questions and gives you lots to think about. Check out this interview with him on the Philosophy Bites podcast.

There's Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which has a sort of Lockean natural-rights bent and Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty which might be more straightforward. I'd also recommend Free Market Fairness by Tomasi; it takes a look at libertarianism with a Rawlsian social justice twist. Finally, I'd take a look at The Logic of Liberty by Michael Polyani. Hope none of these are too basic.

No offense but your grasp of Hayek's work and its importance in economics is pretty superficial at best, and wildly off base at worst (e.g. "basically one idea", though I'm not sure how literally you meant that). And you don't have to take my word on it, several prominent Nobel prize winners-- working in diverse fields in economics-- were deeply influenced by his work, and notably the fields in which they were most prominent seem to have little if anything to do with business cycles or political polemics like RtS (for what it's worth, in my view RtS is Hayek's least interesting work by a fairly significant margin). Just off the top of the head: Douglass North, Elinor Ostrom, Vernon Smith, James Buchanan, and Ronald Coase.

North himself is on the record in saying Hayek was the greatest social scientist of the 20th century. That would be an astonishing claim for someone of North's stature to make if Hayek's important work was limited to business cycles (which, as you correctly note, hasn't found any kind of widespread acceptance in contemporary econ) or political polemics. It's at least slightly less astonishing if you drop that assumption and instead recognize that Hayek worked on a number of other projects, and that his work in particular on institutions and how they structure human behavior laid much of the groundwork for North's own later work.

It's probably also worth pointing out his influence hasn't been limited to economists, e.g. see political philosopher Jerry Gaus's work. I think John Tomasi is another, though I'm not as familiar with his work.

For secondary sources, you might find Bruce Caldwell's intellectual biography Hayek's Challenge to be a useful starting point, or perhaps Peter Boettke's FA Hayek. For primary sources, I'd recommend starting with the first volume of the Law, Legistlation, and Liberty series, Rules and Order.