(Click here to continue on the main path)

I agree with Fred. And let me say, as a libertarian, that Rawls' interpretation of the second principle is definitely incompatible with libertarianism.

The second principle would a only allow increases in inequality that benefit (or maximize the benefit to) the least well off. Libertarians believe that people should be allowed to voluntarily exchange goods and services without restrictions. If the overall result during some period does not improve or maximize the condition of the worst off, that is not sufficient reason to forbid the transaction (or the series of transactions). What matters is whether the original acquisition was justified and whether the later transactions were voluntary.

Why should the impact on the poor be so crucially important as Rawls claims? Think about this possibility for a minute: Suppose that one group of people within a society invent, produce, and trade certain items and that the net result is that 1/3 of the society becomes better off. Let's assume that nothing much happens to the poorest group in society. Rawls appears to forbid this sort of process, but it seems crazy. After all, some people are better off and no one is worse off. What's wrong with that?

Rawls might have a better case if the increase in the wealth of some groups in society caused the poverty of other groups. But he hasn't offered any proof of that, and I think that on the whole it is seldom true. In general, it is the better off people who invest and create jobs and new technologies that increase the standard of living for most people -- including the least well off. It would also make Rawls' view more plausible if goods fell from heaven like manna. But we know that doesn't happen. If you find an island where clothes and automobiles appear like magic, let me know.