Hayek and Rawls take different paths along their journey to reach what they believe the proper form of distributive justice would be. They both follow liberal ideology, focusing more on the individual. Hayek follows a line of thinking based on liberty, utility, and a “economic order based on the market,” and with that with that economic order comes capitalism as the most viable option for the society (Hayek, LLL p.68). Hayek believes that this society will offer the best opportunities for access to the benefits that society has to offer. Rawls takes another position on this subject, starting from the question of, “what will create the best democratic society for all” Rawls answers that question by forming an argument for justice as fairness.…show more content… He believes that all people in a society are free, equal, and have a drive for cooperation with each other. Once the grounding principles are put into place Then the Original Position acts as a filtering device for Rawls’s principles, which from he gets the principles equal basic rights for all, equality of opportunity, and the difference principle. The first principle “requires equality in basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities...are just only if they result with compensating benefits...particularly for the least well off” (Rawls, TJ p.13). Rawls, through the difference principle, is giving priority to the least well off of a society, and this would be Rawls’s distributive justice. He believes because every member of society is free and equal we should all receive the benefits from society, and also have a society where the least well off are brought up to the highest degree. Rawls believes that social cooperation in a democratic society is the major component to making the most beneficial society for all. Rawls criticizes utilitarianism as focusing too much on society being a “forum for the coordination of activities,” while society is based off connections and the cooperation between citizens (Platz, Rawls p.1). Hayek also focuses on laws that would make the…show more content… With the theory that Rawls presents, I originally looked at it as a position unfeasible and unachievable, but after realizing it was a thought experiment I believe that because it continues progress, and emboldens cooperation, that it is better. Critics of Rawls’s theory will say that narrow minded only focusing on the democratic societies, and that his theory will produce less of the good stuff for society overall, therefore destabilizing the society. I will contend that these are good criticisms of the theory. My counter argument for that criticism though is that through empirical studies of our own society, it is seen that people search for social cooperation, and the formation of groups within society and that social cooperation leads to democracy. I will contend that this theory may not lead to the most amount of good stuff in society, but with the prioritization of the least well off in society, there is less unequal and unfair distribution of materials and wealth for all, and therefore more beneficial to all in