I also think that the outcome/ opportunity distinction does not do much heavy lifting in political theory. It is true that one can easily identify opportunities of which one may or may not take advantage, but it is much harder to claim that these are not the result of certain outcomes of personal choices, government policies, or whatever. One might say that free education for all is only an "opportunity", whereas redistribution of wealth is a positive outcome. But free education seems to be even more a positive outcome, since resources are not only made available, but put to certain uses (in the form of teachers, school buildings, etc.), and minors are required to attend until a certain age. Wealth, on the other hand, can be used for slot machines or food, PBR or doctor's visits--since wealth offers no guarantee of well-being, it seems an even more open-ended opportunity than free universal education.

The question changes, of course, if you start with the idea that the end of each individual is not well-being, happiness, or autonomy but material wealth. In that case redistributing wealth is indeed an outcome more than an opportunity, since any opportunity would be understood as directed toward wealth anyway. This formulation helps us understand the assumptions that often undergird the opportunity/ outcome distinction.

Fascinating comment dende. It may sound cynical to formulate the question with the end being material wealth, but I think it may be close to the best we can do. Well-being and happiness are vague notions. In my opinion they are practically impossible to define universally in any meaningful way. If, as you say, material wealth is the most open-ended opportunity, then providing wealth in an equitable way is what government should facilitate. Allow the citizens to take advantage of that opportunity to fulfill their own notions of happiness and well-being. In as much as autonomy is a material notion, wealth provides autonomy. However, it also might mean liberty from government or private encroachment. If that is what is meant, autonomy doesn't have much to do with an economic discussion.

Most people agree not only that happiness ill-defined or 'inchoate' as Kant says, but also that happiness is achieved precisely through personal choice of lifestyle, occupation, companions, etc. So there are at least two reasons for leaving many decisions having to do with happiness up to the individual. In these areas it seems best to give individuals the opportunities and resources (in some cases, this will simply be "wealth") to make their own chocies.

Still, I think that this formula will always be incomplete without an account of true human needs--basic conditions for happiness and autonomy, which are positively provided by society and not subjective. Which are true needs, which are false needs? For example, I suggest that the dream of becoming super rich, while it may spur competition and ambition and keep some people warm at night, is a false need, whereas health care, housing, education, nourishment are among the true needs. True needs should be secured for everyone, regardless of whether they may be lazy, or otherwise unfaithful in their social duties, since these true needs have priority over the legitimate social goals of discouraging lazyness or getting people to work hard. My problem with capitalism is that it fails to fulfill true needs while it multiplies false needs.

I can certainly agree with the notion of basic needs, and a government guarantee that they be met. I think we agree. I just kind of assumed these things fit under the heading of material needs.

I have to disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion so far.

Achievement of "equal outcomes" can only happen through restrictions on some individuals. Who gets to choose which individuals are to be so restricted? And who gets to choose the criteria on which such a selection is based? This "equal outcomes" argument is exactly the same as saying that certain "true needs" are required to be supplied to everyone by the "government". How come YOU get to choose what MY needs are? (should I be allowed three meals a day or four? should I be allowed a masters degree or a PhD? Should I be given an aspirin or a kidney transplant?) How come YOU get to choose how much of MY resources to take from me to supply these "needs" to everyone else?

Both "democratic" capitalism and socialism fall into this trap of needing an elite to make these decisions.

It seems to me that the alternative to "an elite" or a democracy, or name your form of government leaves us with some sort of darwinian determination of how limited resources are allocated.

There is no scandal in admitting that justice requires that there will be "restrictions on some individuals". There is no system of social peace and freedom which doesn't require "restrictions on some individuals." Sparing you the hackneyed Lord of the Flies scenario, I would simply point out that interpersonal life without some restrictions is, at very least, a social life without binding decisions, an indecisive hell. Or, to put it another way, it is a social life ruled by the brute force of whoever is favored by nature and chance.

Of course this does not mean that any kind of restriction is permissible. Acceptance of government is not tantamount to acceptance of totalitarianism. Far from it--since a life without restrictions is at least imaginable, we need not accept them by resignation, as if there is no other way. There is an other way, it's just that the other way is undesirable. Restrictions must be legitimate, since the legitimacy of political power in general is open to question.

Simply because my needs are not identical to your needs in every aspect, does not mean that human needs in general are radically subjective. In fact it is quite remarkable that you can look at any people around the world and find them occupying their time in the pursuit of generally the same kinds of things.

Moreover, simply because I propose a theory or account of justice does not mean that I am setting myself up as a political elite. You are reading this on a weblog--you are under no compulsion to accept this view or its consequences, and even if you and everyone else did so, that would still not entail that you must also accept my leadership. I'm not submitting my name for appointment, at any rate.

True, in most modern societies, decision making, discussion, and agenda setting are distributed quite unevenly. Indeed even in modern democracies some people are barely governed by the law let alone authors of it. And yet democratic processes and provisions for basic, inalienable rights are designed to give people good moral reasons for accepting this arrangement (e.g. the fact that anyone can vote, petition the government, submit their own name for election, enjoy basic rights even if they are on the losing side, etc.). There are some people who still scoff at any set of restrictions, even when there are good moral reasons for accepting them. The ill will of these people does not change the fact that there are (if there are) good moral reasons for obeying, any more than a murderer's attitude changes the fact that murder is wrong. These people, if they are a minority, are also not a problem for public order, since reasonable punishments are enough incentive for them to obey.

Suggesting that there are basic needs which government should make a priority is not the same thing as demanding an extravagant array of social services, let alone socialism. The specific character of these needs is open to a wide variety of interpretations. It does seem that a theory of true needs could help us evaluate the relative value of, e.g. a tax cut for the wealthiest members of society and funding for basic education or adequate protection of military forces. This is one of the reasons why I think that a theory of needs is useful and perhaps indispensible.