1. Arguments against the Market  Engels complains that free market is completely wasteful.  This is also a utilitarian argument. It leads crisis after crisis.  Workers lose their jobs; businesses are ruined or sold at unacceptable prices.  Engels argued that capitalist economy is punctuated by “trade cycle” of boom and bust! This situation is unavoidable.  Free market or the capitalist system has lots of waste in terms of human power.  There is enormous number of people who do not contribute to production.

2.  A communist planned economy could incorporate these people into the production.  Planned economy increases efficiency and reduces working day.  Socialists argue that middleman is product of capitalist economy and he is bloodsucker.  But, capitalists perceive him as the hero who provides goods and services where they are needed.  But, is the communist economic model really an alternative?  A modified market economy might be well sufficient than communist economic model.

3.  But Engels got the point right, when he argued that the market is wasteful.  It just not fulfills the needs, but it creates the needs. More consumption is encouraged.  Alienation of the workers is a considerable problem in capitalist economic model.  Workers are subordinate of machines and they are not as important.  The idea of work is more important than worker goes too far, to the point where worker is not treated as human.  One important criticism of the market is it leads to tremendous inequalities in the society.

4.  While some will make fortunes others will suffer from devastating poverty.  All advanced countries in the western world deal with this problem of inequality.  Unemployment benefits, social welfare programs, disability benefits, income supplements and other grants to provide a minimum standard of living for individuals.  Socialist argument says that distribution from rich to poor is justified since it maximizes the utility.  If we have 2 biscuits and we are two people, when we each get one, we maximize the utility.

5.  If one of us gets both than the other one gets nothing and utility is limited with one individual.  But, if everybody gets the same amount, distribution is equal, then what will happen to those lazy and nonproductive people?  Will they work or attempt to work?  How about those who are hardworking people, innovative, entrepreneur?  If they get the same share with those who are not willing to work then what is the incentive for them to try hard?  So, equal distribution does not work as it sounds it will.

6.  The result will not help to sustain the economy.  Also it is a matter of justice too.  Those who do not try hard get the same share with those who try hard.  Equality does not bring justice sometimes.  The reason for long debates about equality and distribution of property dwell on two things: The notion of justice and scarcity of the goods or resources.

7. Choosing Principles of Justice Rawls lays down couple of principles of justice:  There should be liberty for all in order to be able to reach the basic and the most extensive system of rights.  Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that the greatest benefits of the least advantaged are fulfilled and offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity for all.  He is basically talking about Liberty Principle, Fair Opportunity Principle and Difference Principle.

8.  What this notion of Rawls means is once we reached a certain level of well-being, liberty should have priority over economic well-being or equal opportunity.  The reason for priority of liberty principle is it leads to the other two.  Liberty should not be sacrificed for material advancement.  This principle says that we cannot sacrifice liberty for anything else. How about security?  When there is a curfew or a blackout you do not practice your liberty and go out.

9.  Or when there is economic hardship and government puts in place extra measures to overcome the hardship, we accept those with the notion that the new measures will bring salvation.  Rawls talks about general situations, not about exceptions.  Difference Principle means that distribution of wealth and income in the society should be equal, unless an inequality would be in everybody’s interest.  Meaning that it must be in advantage of worst off.  Rawls notion of liberty principle and difference principle is challenged.

10.  If we need to equalize liberty for one then we need to equalize property too.  It is obvious that rich will do more than the poor can do and consequently will have more liberty.  The difference principle allows inequality of liberties as well.  Limitations on the way that individual acquires the property also is a limitation on the liberty of the individual.  Robert Nozick perceives taxation as forced labor.  You have to work for others.  We all should object this approach he says.

11.  That is to be against taxation. Imagine you work 40 hours a week and you are taxed 25 percent of your income.  That means you have to work 25 percent of 40 hours, which is 10 hours a week, for someone else.  This is forced labor and it is opposite of liberty.  In fact, pure liberalists consider this as slavery.  Anyone who values liberty cannot accept such a situation, Nozick says.  But, supporters of Rawls say, taxation is not a limitation on liberty, it increases liberty since those poor get more choices by increasing their income.