Michael: What if the fairest way to design a society is to know absolutely nothing about who you'll be in it? No idea of your wealth, your race, your talents. Kevin: That sounds like a recipe for chaos. Or maybe the world's most confusing video game character creation screen. "Sorry, all stats randomized. Good luck!" Michael: (Laughs) Exactly. But today, we're exploring a book that argues this state of total ignorance is the only path to true justice. That's the radical premise of Free and Equal: What Would a Fair Society Look Like? by Daniel Chandler. Kevin: And Chandler isn't just some philosopher in an ivory tower, right? I read he's an economist at the London School of Economics who's actually worked as a policy advisor in the British government. Michael: Precisely. He’s trying to bridge that gap between high-minded philosophy and practical, real-world solutions, which is why the book has been so highly acclaimed, even getting praise from people like Thomas Piketty and Zadie Smith. He's basically dusting off the work of the legendary 20th-century philosopher John Rawls for our current age of crisis. Kevin: John Rawls. I feel like I should know that name, but I mostly remember him from a single, very confusing lecture in college. Michael: Well, you're not alone. But Chandler argues Rawls gave us the one tool we desperately need right now. It all starts with a simple question, Kevin. Imagine you have to cut a cake for a group of people, but with a catch: you get the last piece. How do you cut it? Kevin: Oh, that's easy. I'm cutting that cake into perfectly equal slices. Down to the millimeter. I'm not getting stuck with a sliver. Michael: Exactly. You make it as fair as possible because you could end up with any piece. That, in a nutshell, is the core idea that Chandler wants us to re-discover.

Michael: That cake-cutting logic is the key to Rawls’s most famous idea: the "original position." Chandler asks us to imagine we're all in a room together, about to design the basic rules of a new society. But there's a twist. We're behind what Rawls called a "veil of ignorance." Kevin: A veil of ignorance? What does that mean? Michael: It means you know nothing about your specific place in the society you're creating. You don't know if you'll be rich or poor, a man or a woman, what your race or religion will be. You don't even know what your natural talents are—whether you'll be a brilliant athlete or born with a severe disability. Kevin: Wow. So you're a blank slate. You could be anyone. Michael: You could be anyone. And from that position of profound uncertainty, you have to agree on the principles of justice. What rights should people have? How should wealth and power be distributed? The idea is that your self-interest forces you to be impartial. You wouldn't create rules that oppress a certain minority, because you might end up being part of that minority. You wouldn't design a system that leaves the poor to starve, because you could be one of them. Kevin: Okay, I get the logic. It’s the cake problem on a societal scale. But this is a fascinating thought experiment, Michael, it feels... idealistic. People aren't that impartial. We know who we are, and we fight for our own interests. How does this abstract idea actually help us in our messy, polarized world? Michael: That's the perfect question, because Chandler clarifies a common misunderstanding. Rawls never claimed people are this selfless. The "original position" isn't a description of reality; it's a tool for moral clarity. It’s a device to help us work out what we already believe about fairness, if we could just strip away our personal biases. Kevin: So it’s less about how people do act and more about a standard to judge our society against? Michael: Exactly. And for Rawls, this wasn't just an academic exercise. The book tells this heartbreaking story from his childhood. He contracted diphtheria and then passed it to his younger brother, Tommy, who died. Rawls was haunted by this, by the sheer, brutal luck of it all. He got sick, his brother died. This profound sense of life's randomness, of what he called the "natural lottery," fueled his entire philosophy. He wanted to create a system that shields people from the worst outcomes of bad luck. Kevin: That adds a lot of weight to it. It’s not just a clever puzzle; it came from a place of real human suffering and a sense of cosmic injustice. Michael: It absolutely did. And that's why the principles he derives from this thought experiment are so powerful and, as we'll see, so demanding.

Michael: The whole point of the 'original position' is to see what principles a rational person would choose from behind that veil. And Rawls, through Chandler's clear explanation, argues we'd all land on two fundamental rules, or as you might call them, two commandments for a fair society. Kevin: Okay, lay them on me. What's the new operating system for society? Michael: The first principle is about liberty. It states that everyone should have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. Kevin: In plain English? Michael: Your fundamental rights—freedom of speech, conscience, the right to vote, to hold personal property—are non-negotiable. They are the absolute priority. You can't trade them away for anything, not for economic growth, not for the "greater good." It’s the firewall of our society, protecting our individual autonomy. Kevin: Okay, that sounds pretty standard for a liberal democracy. What’s the second one? This is where it gets interesting, I bet. Michael: This is where it gets revolutionary. The second principle deals with social and economic inequalities. It has two parts. First, any positions of power or wealth must be open to everyone under conditions of "fair equality of opportunity." Kevin: So, no discrimination, everyone gets a fair shot. Still sounds reasonable. Michael: But it's the second part that's the bombshell. It's called the "Difference Principle." It says that social and economic inequalities are only justified if they are to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society. Kevin: Hold on. Let me process that. Inequalities are okay only if they help the people at the very bottom the most? Michael: Precisely. Think about the data Chandler presents. In America, the top 1% of earners capture a massive share of the national income, while the bottom 50% get a tiny sliver. The Difference Principle would look at that and ask: does this extreme inequality really work to the maximum possible benefit of the person cleaning floors or working in a warehouse? If not, it's unjust. Kevin: That sounds a lot like the 'trickle-down economics' argument we've heard for decades. You know, 'let the rich get richer, and eventually the wealth will trickle down to everyone else.' How is this different? Michael: It's the absolute opposite, and this is the crucial distinction Chandler makes. Trickle-down economics hopes the benefits will reach the bottom. The Difference Principle demands it as a pre-condition. It's not about maximizing the size of the whole economic pie and hoping a few crumbs fall off the table. It's about organizing the entire economy to maximize the size of the slice that goes to the least well-off. Kevin: So you'd only pay a CEO a massive salary if you could prove that doing so directly and maximally improves the life of their lowest-paid employee? Michael: That's the standard. It turns the whole logic of our economy on its head. It’s not about envy or leveling down; it’s about harnessing human talent and ambition in a way that creates a system of reciprocity. The talented are free to earn more, but only if the system they're in is set up to pull everyone up with them, starting with those at the very bottom.

Kevin: Okay, I see the distinction now. It's a much, much higher bar than trickle-down. But what does that actually look like in practice? Are we just talking about higher taxes and a bigger welfare state? Michael: This is where the book gets really bold and moves beyond the familiar debates. Chandler argues that Rawls's principles demand a fundamental restructuring of our economic institutions. It's not just about redistribution after the fact; it's about "predistribution"—designing the market itself to be fairer from the start. Kevin: Predistribution. Okay. Give me an example. What's the most provocative idea in the book? Michael: There are so many, but let's start with two that challenge our core assumptions. First, Universal Basic Income, or UBI. Chandler argues for it not just as a poverty-fighting tool, but as a way to fundamentally shift the balance of power between workers and employers. If you have a basic income floor to stand on, you have the genuine freedom to say "no" to a degrading or exploitative job. Kevin: The power of 'exit,' as he calls it. That makes sense. It gives you bargaining power. Michael: Exactly. But the second idea is even more radical: workplace democracy. Chandler asks us to question why we accept autocracy in our economic lives when we demand democracy in our political lives. For 8 hours a day, most people work in a system that the philosopher Elizabeth Anderson calls a "private government," a mini-dictatorship run by owners and managers. Kevin: Wow, a 'private government.' That’s a powerful phrase. He uses the story of Amazon warehouse workers, right? Michael: He does. It's a brutal illustration. Workers under such intense pressure they resort to peeing in bottles to meet quotas. That's a workplace with a massive power imbalance. Now, contrast that with a company like Google, which, for its skilled employees, offers incredible autonomy and perks. The difference is power. Rawls's principles, Chandler argues, demand we address this. Kevin: So what's the solution? Workplace democracy? Like, workers voting on company strategy? That seems... radical. And potentially chaotic for business. Does the book show this actually works anywhere? Michael: It does. He points to real-world models. For example, the German system of "co-determination," where large companies are legally required to have worker representatives on their boards, holding up to half the seats. Or even more radically, he discusses worker cooperatives, like the massive Mondragon Corporation in Spain, which is entirely owned and run by its employees. These aren't just fantasies; they are functioning, successful economic models. Kevin: So we're talking about a world with not just a social safety net, but with shared wealth, a universal minimum inheritance, and workers having a real say on company boards. Michael: That's the vision. It's what Rawls called a "realistic utopia"—a society that is both aspirational and achievable. It's about taking these principles of fairness seriously and having the courage to imagine a world structured around them.

Michael: So we start with this simple, intuitive idea of how to cut a cake fairly, and by following its logic, we end up with a radical reimagining of everything from our political rights to the very structure of our workplaces. Kevin: It really makes you question the things we take for granted as 'natural' or 'inevitable'—like the idea that owners should have all the power in a company, or that massive wealth inequality is just a byproduct of a successful economy. The book's real power seems to be in giving us a new lens to see the world. Michael: That's it exactly. It's a framework for thinking. It doesn't give you all the answers, but it gives you a powerful set of questions to ask about our society. It forces you to justify the rules we live by, not from a position of privilege, but from a position of genuine impartiality. Kevin: It’s a hopeful book, which feels rare these days. It’s not cynical. It genuinely believes we can build a better, fairer world by reasoning together. Michael: It is. And it leaves you with this powerful challenge. It makes you ask: what's one rule in our society that you think would be different if it were designed from behind the veil of ignorance? Kevin: That's a great question. For me, it would have to be access to quality education and healthcare. It seems impossible that anyone behind the veil would agree to a system where your ability to get well or get smart depends on the wealth of the family you happen to be born into. Michael: I think you're right. We'd love to hear what our listeners think. What would you change? Join the conversation on our social channels and let us know. Kevin: It’s a conversation worth having. This book provides a fantastic starting point. Michael: This is Aibrary, signing off.