Populism points to another problem with Rawls' approach. Behind the veil of ignorance, presumably people know and agree on the cause and effect principles determining the outcomes of policies. But populists disagree sharply in this area, viewing immigration and trade policies as having consequences that differ from those predicted by conventional economics. If people really agreed on their predictions regarding policy outcomes, the negotiation over which to pick would be more straightforward.
Populism points to another problem with Rawls' approach. Behind the veil of ignorance, presumably people know and agree on the cause and effect principles determining the outcomes of policies. But populists disagree sharply in this area, viewing immigration and trade policies as having consequences that differ from those predicted by conventional economics. If people really agreed on their predictions regarding policy outcomes, the negotiation over which to pick would be more straightforward.
Is this a typo? It makes no sense as is.
“are to be distributed equally unless an equal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage”