John Rawls’ social justice–based distribution ignores an individual’s entitlement if he had worked non-cooperatively. Two people cooperating to produce something will naturally have greater efficiency than if either of them worked alone. It would not take half the time of a single person, but perhaps a third. This extra efficiency is added value that neither party individually generates, and it’s this added value that Rawls believes requires a patterned distribution based on social justice. However, in most cases, one individual will have greater or lesser input than another. Where this is true, you would expect a “fair” distribution of total output to leave the hardest worker short-changed. How is this justice? If I am entitled to the products of my labour, why is it that when I enter into social cooperation do I lose this entitlement?