I am writing this blueprint to save the lives of Iranians fighting for freedom in Iran.
It is clear to me that the strategy adopted by Iranian dissidents to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran is nothing short of futile. Their approach is reminiscent of the coyote’s constant and unsuccessful attempts at catching the road runner in Looney Tunes cartoons. The dissidents’ repeated attempts to bring down the regime using the same old tactics are simply not working, and it’s time for a change in strategy.
Let’s define the objective of Iranian dissidents inside of Iran.
Iranians are residing in Iran who are urging for a revolution. But what is the true meaning of a revolution?
It can be said that a revolution is underway in Iran, led by a significant portion of the population who no longer wish to live under the Islamic Republic. They aspire to overthrow the current regime and establish a state that aligns with their vision, whether it be a constitutional monarchy or a republic.
As a result, Iranians declared war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, leading to a revolution.
Rule Number One: Keep It Secret
The Nozheh Coup, NEGHAB, or Mask, failed because everyone knew about the coup. All secret services worldwide knew the plotters and promised them weapons and cash. When the time came to deliver weapons and money, they did not do it and reported them to the regime in Iran. The security forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran arrested them, and plotters faced summary execution.
Iranian dissidents plan uprisings by publicly announcing the gathering’s exact date, time, and location. The security forces are now able to mobilize and deploy themselves to suppress Iranian dissidents effortlessly.
When Iranians arrange a meeting beforehand and provide information about where, time and how they will show down with the regime, security forces can prepare and control the gathering. Iranians are losing their power to shape the movement.
As a result, Iranian dissidents inside of Iran must keep their plan secret that they want to do a showdown with the Islamic Republic of Iran to have the power of the element of surprise so that they can bring the regime down.
Someone may ask why not keep your blueprint a secret, but I am not a significant player, and those who are may receive this paper and implement the plan to liberate Iran.
Rule Number Two: Control the Thoughts
During World War II, the Axis and Allied Powers utilized propaganda to demoralize each other. Propaganda is a form of communication used to sway opinions and may selectively present facts.
Iran’s government employs a propaganda system to make a particular situation seem acceptable or normal. Towards the end of Khomeini’s life, as his health began to deteriorate, the regime spread rumours of his death for two main reasons. Firstly, the intention was to normalize the situation in order to avoid a power vacuum struggle when Khomeini eventually passed away. Secondly, the Iranians were less likely to mobilize themselves to overthrow the regime in Iran because they were unable to believe that Khomeini was actually dead. Iranians were used to Khomeini’s death.
From time to time, we hear rumours that Ali Khamenei is dead or he is dying. However, he is well and alive. The system is spreading rumours that he will die, and Iranians will not take action against the system in Iran.
Proposing that Iranian dissidents may consider utilizing propaganda tactics to engage in a psychological warfare campaign with the regime in Iran. Iranians can effectively challenge the status quo by strategically spreading rumours – such as the notion that King @PahlaviReza is in Iran and building an army to overthrow the regime. Such measures may be viewed as a non-violent and strategic means of resistance in the ongoing fight against the regime.
Ruler Number Three: Mislead Your Enemy
Contact sports always employ deceptive techniques to gain an advantage. For instance, Karate Kata Kusanku is a perfect example of this. This kata is specifically designed to be used at night, and the practitioner strikes the ground with their leg to distract the attacker and then delivers a powerful blow. This technique is meant to deceive the opponent and prevent them from anticipating the next move.
Iranian dissidents must allow their phones to be hacked by the Islamic Republic of Iran, as Iranian dissidents will enable the regime to use the information obtained to spread misinformation among the elements of the regime. This is especially important during freedom operations, as false information can mislead the state actors and cause them to fail their tasks.
Rule Number Four: Control the Ground & Above
When an army enters a battlefield, they seize control of the above and the ground. The aforementioned actors provide ground forces with intelligence on avoiding danger and identifying the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses.
The United States Army consists of six branches, one of which is the Space Force. The primary mission of the Space Force is to conduct space operations such as satellite-based navigation and communication, missile warning, and weather information gathering.
It is crucial for Iranian dissidents to gain control of rooftops in order to prevent security forces from using deadly weapons against unarmed civilians. By protecting people on the ground and gathering intelligence about the strengths and weaknesses of the movement, they can move closer to victory.
Rule Number Five: Protection of Night
The Greek soldiers launched a surprise attack on Troy during the night while the Trojans were asleep.
Capitan Hooshang Samadi Kalkhurani wrote in his war memoir that he utilized the cover of darkness to launch surprise attacks on the Iraqi forces, who were left in a vulnerable state due to their fatigue.
Iranian dissidents adopt the strategy of moving around at night when it is dark and security forces are less active. This approach gives them an upper hand in taking control of essential locations and cutting off state actors from their security forces.
Last, studying project management and SWOT systems presents alternative ways to overthrow the regime in addition to the strategy and tactics mentioned previously.
The Islamic Republic of Iran's foreign policy has been marked by violence and bloodshed since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The regime's actions have caused the deaths of countless innocent people, and its policies have created tension and conflict with other countries. Unfortunately, the Iranian government seems to be motivated by a desire for bloodshed and violence rather than peaceful diplomacy.
For several years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has posed severe security threats to Azerbaijan and Israel by instigating unrest in their countries.
During an official visit to Azerbaijan and Israel, King of Kings Reza Pahlavi II helped ease tensions between the two countries and the regime in Iran.
King of Kings Reza Pahlavi II did not need an army or economic resources to employ coercive force against Azerbaijan and Israel in order to reduce tension with the theocratic regime in Iran.
King of Kings Reza Pahlavi II used his prudence to reduce tension between Azerbaijan and Israel.
Therefore, it is clear that King of Kings Reza Pahlavi II, post-collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran, will play a vital role as a peacekeeper and peacemaker in the region without using any coercive method. And stability will come back to the area. However, countries like the US, Western countries, and Russia do not want peace because the industrial military complex will not benefit from peace.
Before I illustrate the McCarthyism of Masih Alinejad, I need to define the concept of McCarthyism.
McCarthyism, also known as the Second Red Scare, was a period of political repression and persecution targeting left-wing individuals in the United States. It was characterized by a widespread campaign that sought to instill fear of alleged communist and Soviet influence in American institutions and the threat of Soviet espionage in the U.S. in the late 1940s through the 1950s. U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy was the face of this campaign, but his credibility and popularity declined after several false accusations. By the mid-1950s, McCarthy had lost much of his influence and power.
In 1991, Hollywood produced "Guilty by Suspicion," a film about the Hollywood blacklist, McCarthyism, and the House Un-American Activities Committee.
During a recent appearance on an Iran International television program, Masih Alinejad spoke out against the Islamic Republic of Iran and advocated for the prosecution of its actors, including those living abroad.
This paper aims to explore the concept of how individuals should face their own persecution before pointing fingers at others. As the saying goes, when a person points a finger at someone else, three fingers point back at them. Therefore, the focus of this paper will be on how Ms. Alinejad herself should face persecution before accusing others.
Finger One Pointing at Alinejad:
According to Alinejad's testimony, she was born into an ultra-conservative family. Her father was a member of Basij, a group known for being vigilant. Her father participated in the 1979 Revolution and followed the U.S. propaganda to overthrow the Pahlavi Dynasty.
Alinejad's father worked as a Besij, a state-affiliated group that would disrupt people's happy moments. This experience inspired Alinejad to become a journalist for the Islamic Republic of Iran, where she established a connection with Mohammad Khatami, a former president of Iran.
The Islamic Republic of Iran law prohibits women from singing, but Alinejad could sing a song for Mullah Khatami without facing the Islamic laws.
The Islamic Republic of Iran was adept at deception, surpassing the skills of Hitler and Goebbels.
Nazi Germany used misinformation to deceive its enemies. Similarly, the Islamic Republic of Iran manufactures dissidents who appear to be against their ideology and the system but are actually profoundly attached to it. For instance, Alinejad is one such person who deceives public opinion against the Islamic Republic of Iran and applies the policy of divide and conquer. This prevents Iranians from becoming one voice against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Finger Two Pointing at Alinejad:
Alinejad attended a celebration of life event for #PS752 with surviving family members on January 8th, 2023. During her speech, she spoke about the current unrest in Iran and concluded by stating that true peace in the Middle East can only be achieved by vanquishing Iran.
Alinejad's comment about wiping Iran off the map was not accidental; she later commented that Iran must be defeated.
Alinejad's comment about Iran vanishing from the map reminded me of an incident involving Khomeini. When the latter was returning to Iran after fifteen years of exile, a reporter asked him how he felt about his return. Khomeini's response was simply "nothing".
Alinejad could improve her proficiency in speaking the English language. During an appearance on CNN, she said, "The public was in a bus" instead of the correct phrasing, which would have been "public on a bus."
The question is, who is her sugar daddy? War Lord George Soros or War Lord Bernard-Henri Lévy.
Finger Three Pointing at Alinejad:
The U.S. has a long history of destroying Iran due to its racist attitude toward the ascribed status of Iranians. The U.S. made a story that some individuals were trying to kidnap her and take her back to Iran.
King Reza Pahlavi II is considered a significant threat to the safety and security of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the Iranian state is taking no action against him. On the other hand, Alinejad's impact on Iranian society has been negligible, and she has not been able to inspire any significant movement against the establishment of Iran.
Alinejad filed a civil lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran in the U.S. and received financial compensation for her suffering.
Alinejad is the Puppet of the Mullahs in Iran:
During combat, the victorious army often allows the defeated army a chance to escape death to prevent them from fighting to the last breath, causing more casualties and winning the combat.
For example, when Christopher Columbus arrived in South America, he told his soldiers to burn the ships. He took the hope from them that they could escape the war that they were about to engage with indigenous people.
When the U.S. sent General Robert Huyser to Iran, he prevented the Iranian Armed Forces from killing Khomeini. Khomeini made a Machiavellian promise that the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces would be immune from danger. However, Khomeini slaughtered the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces members without mercy.
Khomeini did not eradicate the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces and gave below General rank to live in fear.
When the U.S. attacked Iraq, it disbanded Iraq's army. As a result, former members of the military formed different militias.
Now, Alinejad is a puppet of the U.S., and the U.S. state actors are coaching her on what to say, and they want more bloodbaths in Iran. Alinejad is proposing for her version of McCarthyism.
Therefore, the Iranian Armed Forces will use brute force to suppress Iranian dissidents in Iran and outside of Iran, and her comments are like poison that will prolong the longevity of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Alinejad is not a rational and pragmatic person. She lives in a world of me and does not care about others. She started a movement in Iran and asked Iranian women to remove their headscarves and challenge the authority while living peacefully in the West.
It is a known fact that Alinejad's sister is a member of Besij, a vigilant faction in Iran. Alinejad herself is part of the friendship center between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which aims to maintain the current regime and, once Iran's natural resources are depleted, they will turn Iran into a cloud of dust.
Let's collaborate with King Reza Pahlavi II to bring peace to the Middle East and prevent global destruction.
Stephen Harper is a fanatic, radical Christian who grew up in a Christian family believing the Holy Bible was the exact word of God.
Harper belonged to the Reform Party of Canada and The Canadian Alliance Party, which are firmly based on Christian principles. It is worth noting that Preston Manning, a prominent member of this group, put forth certain propositions, such as investing pensions in the stock market and allowing them to flourish, which some found to be illogical.
It was abundantly clear that when Jean Chrétien (Liberal Party of Canada) was elected to the Prime Minister’s Office, Canadians had had enough of Brian Mulroney’s lack of luster performance during the Charlottetown Accord and NAFTA negotiations. Mulroney’s inability to excel in these critical areas left Canadians yearning for his removal from the Prime Minister’s Office.
Canada’s Prime Minister in 1995, Jean Chrétien, successfully thwarted Quebec’s attempt to secede from the rest of the country.
As time passed, Chrétien’s once-appealing charisma dwindled, and his political party displayed arrogance by exchanging gifts and favours with select influential individuals in the public eye.
Upon Chrétien’s retirement as Prime Minister of Canada, his successor Paul Martin assumed the role of Prime Minister’s Office amidst a multitude of scandals.
The Reform Party, Alliance Party, and Conservative Party faced challenges in gaining votes because the conservative votes were split between three parties, resulting in a failure to secure enough votes to form a government.
The political parties mentioned above came to the decision to merge into one conservative party in order to avoid splitting the votes between three different conservative parties. The Conservative Party of Canada was formed and previously known as the Conservative Progressive Party of Canada.
In 2005, Stephen Harper was elected as the Prime Minister, forming a minority government as Canadian citizens were unwilling to have the Liberal Party in power. It was only after Harper’s true character was revealed to the public that Canadians were willing to forgive the Liberal Party.
All federal government documents are now required to display the letterhead of Harper’s Government, as per the decree issued by Harper.
During Harper’s administration, scientific research funding was cut, and police were granted increased power to arrest individuals. The government strongly emphasized combating terrorism, but a criminal lawyer who appeared on CBC expressed concern about the wording of terrorism laws. He stated that simply uttering the word “terror” could result in serious criminal charges. Harper was able to create an atmosphere of fear in Canada, wielding his power with impunity and without restraint.
Harper exerted his authority and initiated a military attack on Muhammad Qaddafi, leading to Libya being embroiled in a civil war.
Eventually, Justin Trudeau formed a majority government because Canadians wanted to avoid Harper in Prime Minister’s Office.
Overall, Harper’s beliefs are similar to those of the Islamic Republic in Iran. He thinks that by causing chaos and corruption on earth, he can hasten the return of Jesus.
It’s not unexpected to see Harper engaging in a handshake with Maryam Rajavi, as he tends to relish using his influence to subjugate others, finding it to be a source of personal strength.
Harper may not identify as Christian, but his actions and beliefs align closely with those of clerics in Iran. He actively associates with and listens to the devil, embracing this darkness as part of his identity.
I am reading Adam Smith's book "The Wealth of Nations" on page 391, the author says, "what Dercyllidas said of the court of Persia may be applied to that of several European princes, that he saw there much splendour but little, and many servants but few soldiers."
General Robert E. Huyser's book "Mission to Tehran" serves as a reminder of his covert mission to Iran, where he met with General Abbas Gharabaghi. The mission aimed to avert any attempted coup by the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces and prevent Iran from descending into chaos under Khomeini's rule.
According to Adam Smith's book, written on March 9th, 1776, his concepts are relevant to Iran's present political situation. Iranians are enduring challenging circumstances and necessitate practical approaches to dismantle oppression. Various specialists propose that a republic system, as opposed to a constitutional monarchy, could potentially be the most suitable choice for Iran's future. It is worrisome to witness individuals advocating for a republic system without thoroughly comprehending politics, as their actions may unintentionally fortify the current regime's grasp on power in Iran.
Iran does not require a theoretical debate on whether to establish a republic or a constitutional monarchy to liberate itself from the dystopian state. The country needs a capable leader such as King @PahlaviReza and a team of strategists to devise a plan to save Iran from the Islamic Republic. At a later time, the citizens of Iran can determine the type of state they would prefer through a national referendum. In the meantime, they are being manipulated as pawns through a strategy of dividing and conquering.
We need to establish a strategic plan and council to liberate Iran from the oppressive regime of the Islamic Republic in Iran and become sons and daughters of Iran to assist King @PahlaviReza in doing his job to rescue Iran from the jaws of the destruction of the authoritarian regime in Iran.
Iran, a historic land located between the East and West, is of great interest to Western and Eastern powers seeking access to its natural resources to benefit their elites. They view Iran as an obstacle to their goals and seek its destruction.
Various Western and Eastern powers are selecting specific individuals from Iran’s ethnic group who are willing to compromise the nation’s integrity by advocating for the separation of a particular region and establishing it as a self-autonomous entity, despite this being contrary to the nation’s history dating back to the time of Cyrus the Great.
Social media personalities Masih Alinejad, Ali Javanmardi, and Abdullah Mohtadi are promoting the disintegration of Iran through speeches advocating for its defeat. Nader Soltanpour, a speaker for Iran International, contributes to the fragmentation of Iran’s ethnic groups.
During her speech, Ms. Alinejad repeatedly stated that Iran is a problem that needs to be dissolved. She also opened the way for Mr. Javanmardi and Mr. Mohtadi to assert that Kurdistan in Iran should be recognized as a separate nation.
Many Iranians oppose the Islamic Republic of Iran because of its oppressive regime. Alinejad, Javanmardi, and Mohtadi are among those who advocate that creating an independent country could liberate them from this tyranny. Nevertheless, this notion offers a false promise of a brighter tomorrow.
Alinejad, Javanmardi, and Mohtadi argue that their separatist idea is not a criminal act, but in reality, it is since they are taking land away from Iran without lawful permission.
Nader Soltanpour is a journalist employed by Iran International, whose aim is to create division among the ethnic groups in Iran. He is supporting Iranian terrorists who intend to commit acts of terrorism against Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, as the Crown Prince believes in the unity of Iran.
There are concerns about the safety of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi due to threats made by Javanmardi. These threats were made under false pretenses because Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi opposed the Women, Life, Freedom movement. Measures need to be taken to protect the Crown Prince.
Some individuals in France and the United Kingdom named, Azad Mostowfi and Rezgar Bahary have made concerning statements. Mostowfi has called for the assassination of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, while Bahary echoes the sentiments expressed by Javanmardi and Mostowfi. These individuals have been identified as potential terrorists.
There was a discussion among thieves like Javanmardi, Mohtadi, Azad Mostowfi and Rezgar Bahary about using a portion of land to create a new country; it weakened Iran’s national security and caused a shift in the balance of power in the region. This created an opportunity for other countries to take advantage of Iran’s vulnerability. The Taliban in Afghanistan started a military mission in Iran.
Iranians need to prioritize a united Iran over self-autonomy. This is because Western and Eastern powers seek to take advantage of Iran’s natural resources and view a weak Iran as beneficial to their interests. A strong Iran poses a threat to these powers, as it cannot be easily manipulated. In contrast, a strong army can easily exploit a small and weak country.
There is a strategy known as “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that Western powers have developed to divide Iran into smaller countries. It is believed that these countries will then engage in conflicts over minor issues, ultimately serving the interests of the Western powers.
The “Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” policy has become relevant due to threats to Iran’s national integrity from Azerbaijan and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Iranian traitors like Nader Soltanpour are given a platform by Iran International to make threats against Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who advocates for national unity in Iran.
To ensure the prevention of civil wars in Iran, it is crucial to refrain from dividing the country based on ethnic groups. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi is an up-and-coming leader who has the potential to lead both Iran and the region toward a brighter future.
John Rawls (1921-2002) wrote “A Theory of Justice” in 1971, a work of political philosophy and ethics that offers a moral theory distinct from utilitarianism while addressing the issue of distributive justice. The thesis draws on an updated version of Kantian philosophy and a modified form of conventional social contract theory. Rawls’s theory of justice focuses on political justice and differs from other types of justice discussed in various fields and situations.
Since it was first published in 1971, the theory has undergone several challenges and refinements over the decades. In 1985, a significant reappraisal was published in the essay “Justice as Fairness,” followed by the 2001 book Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, in which Rawls further developed his two central principles for his justice discussion. These principles dictate that society should prioritize giving its members the maximum possible amount of liberty, with the caveat that no member’s freedom should infringe upon any other member’s. Additionally, social or economic inequalities are only acceptable if they benefit the worst off, and this inequality should not limit those without resources from occupying positions of power, such as a public office.
Abstract:
In “A Theory of Justice,” Rawls proposes balancing liberty and equality in a well-ordered society. He bases this on the circumstances of justice, inspired by David Hume, and a fair choice situation for parties, similar to some of Immanuel Kant’s views. The parties involved are not purely altruistic or egoistic but instead have their own goals, which they prefer to achieve through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls presents a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) in which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Rawls believes that under such constraints, parties would choose his favoured principles of justice over other alternatives, such as utilitarian and right-wing libertarian accounts.
Traditional Social Contract:
Rawls is part of the social contract tradition, but his perspective differs from previous philosophers. He creates principles of justice using a tool called the Original Position, which involves everyone deciding on these principles while unaware of their circumstances. Rawls refers to this as a “veil of ignorance” that prevents people from tailoring the principles to their advantage.
The concept of justice is determined without knowing an individual’s social status, assets, intelligence, or personal values. This is done through a hypothetical veil of ignorance where individuals do not even know their place in society or biased tendencies. Only after this veil is lifted are the principles of justice chosen.
Rawls suggests that not knowing specific details about oneself can result in fair principles for all. To avoid favouring any particular group, individuals must understand how they fit into society and create a system of justice that treats everyone equally. Rawls proposes that everyone in the Original Position adopt a maximin strategy to ensure the best possible outcome for the least advantaged.
Rawls’ Original Position is founded on the principles that reasonable and independent individuals would agree upon in a situation of equality, defining the essentials of their social agreement. Rawls suggests a “thin theory of the good,” clarifying the reasoning behind the principles chosen in the Original Position. A comprehensive theory of the good is established after principles are derived from the original position. Rawls proposes that two regulations would be adopted by the parties in the original position, governing the allocation of rights and duties and dictating the distribution of social and economic benefits throughout society. Under the difference principle, unequal distribution of resources is only permissible if it benefits the most disadvantaged members of society. Rawls argues that this principle would be a rational choice for representatives in the original position because each individual has an equal right to their society’s resources, regardless of their natural abilities. Therefore, the fundamental right of any individual is to possess an equal share in material wealth. Rawls maintains that unequal distribution is only justifiable if it benefits the worst-off members of society.
The agreement resulting from the original position is hypothetical and not based on historical events. Rawls argues that the principles of justice should be determined based on what parties agree to under certain legitimating conditions rather than what they have previously decided. He believes these principles would have moral weight if they were agreed upon in the hypothetical situation of the original position. However, it is essential to note that this agreement has never been derived in the real world outside of carefully limited experimental exercises.
Define Justice:
Throughout his book, Rawls modifies and develops the principles of justice. In chapter forty-six, Rawls provides his final clarification on the two principles of justice. The first principle asserts that every person should have an equal right to a comprehensive system of fundamental liberties that align with similar privileges for all. The second principle outlines that social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged while adhering to the just savings principle. Additionally, these inequalities should be attached to positions and opportunities open to all with fair equality of opportunity.
There are three principles of justice, with the first being the greatest equal liberty principle. The second principle has two parts: the difference principle and the equal opportunity principle. Regarding priority, Rawls orders principles 1, 2b, and 2a. The greatest matching liberty principle comes first, followed by the equal opportunity and difference principles. Each guide must be met before moving on to the next, so the fundamental liberties protected in the first principle cannot be traded for social or economic advantages granted by the second principle. Rawls emphasizes that regulations must be met in order and must be followed.
Define Liberty:
According to Rawls, each individual should have equal access to the most comprehensive system of fundamental liberties possible, provided it does not interfere with the equal rights of others. This principle mainly concerns the distribution of rights and liberties. Rawls identifies several basic privileges, including political freedom, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of thought and conscience, and freedom from physical and psychological harm. The right to personal property and protection from arbitrary arrest and seizure are also included. However, there is a debate over whether the freedom to make contracts should be considered a fundamental liberty. Rawls argues that it is not essential and, therefore, not protected by the priority given to the first principle.
Economic Inequality:
According to Rawls, social and economic inequalities should be structured to benefit the least advantaged members of society as long as it is consistent with the just savings principle. Rawls believes that deviations from equality should only be permitted if they improve the situation of the worst off compared to the original equal distribution. This means that inequalities can be justifiable if they benefit the least well-off. Rawls argues that arbitrary factors like family background should not determine one’s life chances or opportunities. He also believes that individuals do not morally deserve their innate talents; therefore, they are not entitled to all the benefits that come with them. As a result, one of the criteria that could be used to assess the fairness of distributions in place of equality is eliminated.
In addition, according to the just savings principle, we must consider the needs of future generations and ensure that they have the necessary resources. While Rawls doesn’t provide a clear definition, it can be interpreted as positively impacting those who will come after us.
Equal Opportunity:
To ensure fairness, social and economic inequalities should only be attached to offices and positions open to everyone with equal opportunities (as stated in 2b). This principle takes precedence over 2a since equal opportunity means that skills should be valued over material resources, and everyone should have the chance to acquire those skills. Even though the difference principle may allow some inequality to benefit the worst off, it’s essential to consider that significant inequalities could undermine the value of political liberties and measures toward equal opportunities. Therefore, the first principle of justice and 2b may require greater equality than the difference principle.
Outlook:
1972 Marshall Cohen reviewed A Theory of Justice in The New York Times Book Review. He praised Rawls’ analytic philosophy techniques, making the book the most effective defence of the social contract tradition. Cohen credited Rawls with providing a bold and rigorous account of the principles upon which our public life is committed. Scholars compared Rawls’ accomplishments to John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. However, Cohen criticized Rawls for being loose in understanding some fundamental political concepts. Cohen believed it might take years before scholars could make a satisfactory appraisal of Rawls’ work.
“A Theory of Justice,” a work by Rawls, was heavily criticized by various philosophers. In his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick criticized Rawls’ account of distributive justice. In his review of the book for the American Political Science Review in 1975, Allan Bloom noted that “A Theory of Justice” received significant attention in the Anglo-Saxon world and attributed its popularity to Rawls’ “radical egalitarian interpretation of liberal democracy.” Bloom criticized Rawls for not accounting for natural rights in his theory of justice and for absolutizing social union as the ultimate goal. Robert Paul Wolff criticized Rawls from a Marxist perspective in his book Understanding Rawls: A Critique and Reconstruction of A Theory of Justice (1977), arguing that Rawls constructs justice from existing practice and forecloses the possibility of problems of injustice embedded in capitalist social relations, private property, or the market economy.
In his book “Liberalism and the Limits of Justice” (1982), Michael Sandel criticized Rawls’ approach to justice. Sandel argued that Rawls’ focus on justice disconnected it from people’s values and personal identities, leading to a flawed understanding of justice. Similarly, Susan Moller Okin praised Rawls’ “most influential” theory in her book “Justice, Gender, and the Family” (1989) but also criticized Rawls for neglecting to address the injustices inherent in familial relationships. Meanwhile, economists Kenneth Arrow and John Harsanyi took issue with Rawls’ use of maximin reasoning in the original position. They accused Rawls of manipulating his parameters to support his desired principles. In his argument, Rawls defended the original position as a tool for understanding fairness in decision-making and downplaying the importance of maximin reasoning.
Philosopher Charles W. Mills, in his book Black Rights / White Wrongs, criticizes the assumptions underlying Rawls’s work as being inherently white, resulting in significant blind spots. Mills contrasts Rawls’s “ideal theory” and the “white fantasy world of Rawlsianism” with the history of racialized oppression and argues that non-ideal theory is necessary to address racial inequality and potential solutions. Mills points out that Rawls’s extensive work on social justice neglects to address racial justice, a critical issue today. Mills uses Radical Black Kantianism to contextualize Rawls’s silence on race within a broader tradition of white political philosophers who are either explicitly racist or ignore race when discussing justice.
Amartya Sen, an economist, has expressed concerns about Rawls’ focus on primary social goods. In his book “Inequality Reexamined” (1992), he argues that we should instead pay attention to the distribution of direct goods and how effectively people can use them to achieve their goals. Norman Daniels has also questioned why healthcare isn’t considered a primary good, and his subsequent work has explored this issue, advocating for a right to healthcare within a Rawlsian framework. Meanwhile, philosopher G. A. Cohen has criticized Rawls’ acceptance of inequality under the difference principle, his use of the principle solely for social institutions, and his excessive emphasis on using primary goods as the basis for equality. Cohen’s critiques can be found in his books “If You’re An Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?” (2000) and “Rescuing Justice and Equality” (2008).
In “The Idea of Justice” (2009), Sen criticizes and attempts to revive Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice.” Sen appreciates Rawls’ emphasis on fairness, objectivity, equality of opportunity, removal of poverty, and freedom, which revived interest in the meaning of justice. However, Sen critiques Rawls for not addressing the impact of human behaviour on institutions’ ability to maintain a just society. He also argues that Rawls’ idea of a perfectly fitting world does not help to address current inequality. Sen believes that multiple conflicting yet appropriate principles may arise, undermining Rawls’ approach of a multistep process leading to a perfectly just society. Sen thinks that Rawls’ position that there be only one possible outcome of the reflective equilibrium behind the veil of ignorance is misguided.
