Younkins' response to Rawlsian Justice

According to Bill Clinton in 1999, he is "perhaps the greatest political philosopher of the 20th century". According to Wikipedia, he is one of the most frequently cited contemporary philosophers in American courtrooms. According to Edward Younkins, author of Capitalism and Commerce: conceptual foundations of free enterprise, his theory of distributive justice amounts to a rebellion against nature and the diversity of human talent. There is no doubt that if one seeks to understand or explain the difference between social justice and true justice, knowledge of justice according to John Rawls is indispensible.

Rawls' theory of justice arises not from a belief in natural law, God, or moral absolutes of any kind, but rather from consideration of a hypothetical scenario - a thought experiment. What if there existed a "veil of ignorance" such that each individual had no idea of which gifts nature, fate, DNA, or luck would grant to him? What if each was forced to consider, for example, being born to a single mother living in poverty? What effect might this ignorance have on the laws or government programs this individual favored? According to Rawls, if each individual sincerely performed such a thought experiment, all would be able to agree upon the ideal system of justice in society, namely one in which the just law is simply one that is beneficial to the disadvantaged.

Continuing with this line of thinking, Rawls is able to justify coercive governmental policy that redistributes wealth on the basis that, to the extent that such policy benefits the disadvantaged, all individuals should agree on its fairness behind the veil of ignorance. It follows, then, that society should agree upon having extensive social welfare programs, a harsh inheritance tax, and redistributive taxation nearly to the point at which the economic pie ceases to grow at all.

Younkins refutes Rawlsian justice at its core. He states that for an individual behind the veil of ignorance, a redistributive taxation system may be a prudent choice, but it is certainly not a just one. True justice, he explains, "is attained when people’s lives and property are secure and they are free to own property, order its direction, determine the purpose to which their bodies are put, engage in consensual transactions and relationships with others, and freely pursue their conception of happiness."

Rawls' system, in effect, throws all supposedly undeserved talents, possessions, skills, and energies of individuals into a common pool so that they can be unnaturally divvied up as fairly as possible. This, as Younkins puts it, adds up to a rebellion against nature and reality: "A natural fact, such as the existence of one’s talents, is neither just nor unjust—it just is." Those 'favored by nature' should not be made to pay for what is not of their own making. No, the only just form of redistribution is the gift given freely or charitable act done voluntarily by one for another, which is after all a common sight to see in a society built upon freedom, virtue, and true justice.