My beef with John Rawls is twofold. First, there's his seriously questionable method invoking the "veil of ignorance," which is just a spiffier version of the easy-to-discredit social contract theory. Second, he seems to arrive at remarkably dull conclusions, that liberal democracy is the best possible way of dealing with human relations. OK, so first you're assuming all the assumptions that Western post-Enlightenment classical-liberals have, and then using those assumptions to inform a spurious thought experiment. So why am I unsurprised that you're assuming further that the subjects of that thought experiment "naturally" have a Western post-enlightenment classical-liberal concept of justice and morality? Jesus, this is such bad philosophy, attempting to remain in this Kantian space aloft from the messy contradictions of human behavior. Sorry Johnny, that ain't how the world works. Although I have to say, I'm pissed at the majority of GoodReads readers who reviewed this because it offends their even more ignorant libertarian/American individualist perspectives.