If Roemer thinks that Rawl's theory of justice is just a primary goods theory
of justice he is just wrong. While part of justice involves a background of
institutions that ensure everyone has a certain minimum of primary goods
this is only part of his view.
His emphasis is on everyone having basic liberties
to vote and run for office, freedom of speech, thought etc. from arbitrary
arrest. His theory of justice is not justified as maximizing fuck-all--that is
it is not consequentialist or utilitarian, it
is a deontological contract-theory based upon the concept of what principles
rational agents would choose as fair from behind a veil of ignorance. He does
note justify liberal freedoms and values as Mill's does from the point of
view of what maximises the general good or happiness.
Rawls does seem to implicitly accept the individualist and
a-historical outlook characteristic not only of Roemer and the analytical
Marxists but of welfare economics as well. Rawls' theory however would support
an extensive welfare system as required for any tolerably just society, and
as such provides a critique of contemporary neo-liberal policies from within
common individualist liberal assumptions. To argue that an inequality that
does not better the position of the least well off in society is unjust
may not be Marxism but it is better than saying that it is justified because
it makes a country more competitive, or capital should be free to do as it
likes, or the inequality increases GDP, or that it is a potential Pareto
improvement!
Cheers, Ken Hanly
