>That is not what Pareto Optimality is at all. Pareto Optimality is a state
>of affairs where no further "trades" would make anyone better off WITHOUT
>MAKING SOMEONE WORSE OFF.
Right, that got deleted by mistake, but it was simultaneously corrected by someone else, so I didn't think it was worth commenting on.
I am not sure that Rawls redistribution is
>necessarily contradictory to the principle since the better off may in
>actuality receive compensations i.e less civil unrest, a healthier
>workforce etc from redistribution.
"Better off" in Rawls' sense means something very specific, viz., better off in terms of having more of the primary social goods: freedom, opportunity, wealth. If the better off are deprived of wealth, they are made worse off in the relevant sense.
People cannot be expected to keep their
>part of a "social contract" if there is not a certain minimum granted to
>them.
Yes, but R thinks the two principles of justice only appy in a rich society where all can have that minimum. If the better off are not above that level, the 2 princoples don't apply at all.
And of course Rawls justifies a considerable amount of unequal
>division of power income etc. on the grounds that everyone is made better
>of
>by such inequalities and no one worse off.
No. Rawls says that whatever degree of inequality of wealth or opportunity is justified is only justified to the extend that the inequality makes the less well off better off in those particular respects. That may be a considerable amount or not. That's an empirical question he doesn't address much. In the latest book, Justice as Fairness, he strongly suggests that it's not much, in his view.
>jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp