In the Name of Justice: Rawlsianism vs Libertarianism
Revisiting the Debate For Equality
Rawslianism and libertarianism are both sides of the same coin. While both argue for justice, they are fundamentally separated in their definition of justice.
John Rawls asserts that every individual possesses an inviolable right anchored in the principles of justice, irrespective of societal welfare (Rawls 1999:3). Using the difference principle, he argues that a society should strive to maximize the position of the least advantaged, provided that equal basic liberties are secured (Rawls 1999:72).
Rawls introduces the difference principle as an egalitarian concept to challenge the principle of efficiency. He argues that an equilibrium could be reached without acknowledging the standpoint of justice. In a society divided into numerous classes, the inability to maximize an individual’s position without lowering others’ reveals the limitation of the principle of efficiency as a standard of justice (Rawls 1999:61-62). According to Rawls, this is insufficient, for justice exists before efficiency (Rawls 1999:69).
Despite allowing for inequality, the difference principle is grounded in mutual benefit for all members of society. Inequality is strictly justified if it improves the position of the least advantaged, as the most fortunate understand that the well-being of every individual depends on social cooperation (Rawls 1999:88). Thus, the difference principle provides a more stable basic structure of society.
Utilitarianism also advocates for reducing inequality, but on a weaker ground. Its strict focus on the greatest average happiness could justify violations of individual rights. Rawls illustrates that a slaveholder might be justified in his actions if he produces a greater overall happiness for society (Rawls 1999:145). Consequently, he concludes that utilitarianism is unfit to provide a stable structure for society compared to Rawlsian principles.
Furthermore, utilitarianism lacks a practical basis to measure individual welfare. Rawls argues that constructing an aggregate measure of utility is unreliable due to the different preferences, characteristics, abilities, and social positions of individuals (Rawls 1999:150). Thus, without an accurate valuation of utility, he maintains that the argument for the average principle of utility itself cannot hold (Rawls 1999:151).
On the opposing side, libertarianism asserts that individual liberty, often illustrated by the protection of property rights, should be prioritized over equality. Libertarianism contends that, provided a just acquisition and transfer of property, people should be entitled to their possession despite unequal outcomes (Howes et al. 2026:133). This idea is known as the “entitlement theory” (Nozick 1974:150).
Nozick provides an example of the former basketball player, Wilt Chamberlain. He argues that if he charges a fee of twenty-five cents a ticket to a million spectators, he is fully entitled to all of his $250,000 earnings (Howes et al. 2026:134). He claims that any idea of redistribution would be viewed as an injustice because the process of property transfer does not violate any principles of justice in acquisition and transfer (Nozick 1974:161). Transferring even some of the income after voluntary participation would suggest forced labour. Hence, any equality-preferring act would strongly be considered a coercive means towards Chamberlain.
Nozick strengthened the logical mechanism of libertarianism by reasserting the Kantian principle that “individuals are ends not means”. Any intervention that results in involuntary participation is not aligned with the principle, thus, an initiative such as redistribution is categorized as illegitimate (Howes et al. 2026:134). Other arguments include the property right to our own bodies. Even though most individuals can survive with one kidney, a kidney transplant demands a mutual agreement (Howes et al. 2026:134). Such a case shows the consistency of libertarianism with the protection of individual liberty within a just institutional mechanism.
By emphasizing the protection of mechanisms regardless of outcomes, libertarianism not only promotes efficiency under fair arrangements but also advocates self-sufficiency. Despite not objecting to unequal consequences, it places an extremely high valuation on individual rights and autonomy.
However, I argue that Rawlsianism triumphs over libertarianism by acknowledging different individual circumstances. Libertarianism overlooks this by relying on the premise that the only necessary intervention to enhance individualism is to ensure a just procedure. The logic of libertarianism reinforces that some are more entitled to liberty than others. For a framework that advocates for individual freedom, the inability to acknowledge differing individual circumstances implies that individual liberty is not universal despite being an absolute goal.
Furthermore, perfectly fair procedural justice is rarely achievable. Rawls illustrates this by giving examples of a criminal trial, arguing that it is impossible to design a legal system that always produces correct results (Rawls 1999:75). Such imperfection challenges the idea that fairness should be understood as compliance with a perfect procedure, asserting that fairness as a whole cannot be separated from the procedural consequences.
Rawls acknowledged that without an effort to preserve equality, distribution of assets is predetermined by natural constraints (Rawls 1999:62). By setting a baseline for individuals within a basic structure that aims to maximize the position of the least advantaged, Rawls has not only identified the inherent self-respect necessary for the basic structure of society, but advocated the infrastructure of individual liberty. Taking Nozick’s analogy on Chamberlain, the difference principle acknowledges that the innate disadvantages of some audience members are beyond their control. A case for equality-preferring intervention, and not particularly as a transfer of cash, thrives as a compensation for such differing positions.
Ultimately, Rawlsianism approaches justice as a process and consequences, while libertarianism relies on the fairness of procedure to define justice as a whole. Separation of fairness in procedure from its consequences allows justice to be partially understood. And a partial definition of justice is a kind of justice partially delivered.
References
Howes S, Agarwal V and Woolf M (2026) Growth, inequality, and the environment: an introduction, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU.
Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia, Basic Books, New York.
Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice: revised edition, 2nd edn, Belknap Press, Cambridge.