It’s true that some difficulties are greater than others, and some people achieve more than others. But I don’t see what any individual’s achievement has anything to do with another’s.

And I certainly don’t think that people should be grouping with one another based on characteristics outside their control. People should group together based on shared chosen values.

Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either, just f— off and leave me alone.

§ The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt and a flat tyre.

§ The darkest hours come just before the dawn. So if you’re going to steal your neighbour’s milk and newspaper, that’s the time to do it.

· Sex is like air. It only becomes really important when you aren’t getting any.

§ Don’t aspire to become irreplaceable. If you can’t be replaced, you can’t be promoted.

§ Remember, no one is listening until you fart.

§ Never forget that you are unique, like everyone else.

§ Never test the depth of the water with both feet.

§ If you think nobody cares whether you’re dead or alive, try missing a couple of mortgage payments

§ Before you judge someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you judge them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.

§ If at first you don’t succeed, avoid skydiving.

§ Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.

§ Have you ever lent someone £20 and never seen that person again? It was probably worth it.

§ If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.

§ Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.

§ Don’t worry; it only seems kinky the first time.

§ Good judgment comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgment.

§ The quickest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket.

§ A closed mouth gathers no feet.

§ There are two theories about how to win an argument with a woman. Neither one works.

§ Generally speaking, you aren’t learning much if your lips are moving.

§ Never miss a good chance to shut up.

§ Experience is something you don’t get until just after you need it.

§ When we are born we are naked, wet, hungry, and we get smacked on our arse. From there on in, life gets worse

Regarding the “original position” comments–I’ll have to think about how to revise my post. I see what you’re saying, so I see how what I wrote was unclear. I definitely like your much better example of the post office worker and entrepreneur. I’ll try to incorporate that into my revision. Although we do have a standard of justice external to Rawls’s–viz., the Objectivist view on justice. I’m not trying to poke internal inconsistencies in Rawls’s position (on that matter)–I’m showing how they contradict a rational concept of justice.

As for the “direct cause-and-effect”, all I’m talking about is every trade anybody every makes with anybody else. Microsoft being supremely wealthy makes it possible for them to offer me Microsoft Windows at a very low price relative to the value I derive for it (Vista’s crappiness notwithstanding). The wealthier Microsoft is, the more profit they can make–by making its consumers that much better off.

Your distinction as to the right of free speech to be the right to speak, not the right to be heard is quite correct. I find it curious that this isn’t expanded to other areas of _equality of opportunity_ versus _equality of results_ as well.

Regarding the “original position” – don’t say that “the better-off would not want a system of social organization that might make them worse off, even though it would be just”. Rawls is trying to define this sort of situation as “just”. Your phrasing makes it seem like the justice by which we evaluate this is external to Rawls’ argument, which it isn’t.

I don’t think Rawls’ views on desert necessitate static wealth. It would be consistent with his arguments to say that people can create wealth, but that it’s not deserved by them because their ability to create it is derived from their undeserved starting point. What would be appropriate to point out is that people from equal starting positions can end up with different levels of wealth. The lazy guy who is content working at the post-office his whole life or the entrepreneur who makes millions can both come from farmer parents in the same small town. What accounts for their resulting differences? The entrepreneur *earned* his difference.

He does say why we should be concerned with wealth differences. He thinks it’s a social stability issue. The poor get upset when they have too little money. Of course, this isn’t an argument, just an observation, and by no means a justification for moral claim or authority.

It would be good to give an example of the “direct cause-and-effect” of the wealthy producers benefiting the poor person. It takes a lot more background to believe this claim than you argue for in this short paragraph.