It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but

from their regard to their own interest Adam Smith. Through the above mentioned statement from the father of free market system, this is evident that in this system everyone is for himself, following their own motive and self interest without really taking care of another variables or entities. Profit being the sole motivator and driving force behind every decision made or action taken. So earning as much as possible from the given financial outlay a person can put in, and the investor having the divine right to do whatever he wants to do with it, and of course it as per the system it would be highly irrational to share it with others. So if this continues this will lead to accumulation of wealth in the hands of few with others merely being observers or used as instruments in profit making activity of rich. Smith even goes on to say No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. Now flourishing and happiness being the top most objectives for any society, here as how are the lower classes suppose to get some wealth in order to improve their state. Here arises a gap, as how is wealth to be distributed, although supporters of free market have come with various solutions to bridge down the gap, yet it remains the most important drawback in the system even later became basis of other models like socialism. Rawls negates the system, mainly due to this gives out his own ideology of distributive principle, based on : based on fair and just distribution of primary goods like rice, liberty and money etc, which goes entirely in the opposite direction of the free economic system, it believes that each member of society has a claim on their societys goods. This appears or gives us glips of socialism, economic model opposed to the free market where everything is public owned, that is, state controlled.

Free market economy: A free market is a competitive market where prices are determined by supply and demand. However, the term is also commonly used for markets in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts. Free markets differ from situations encountered in controlled markets or a monopoly, which can introduce price deviations without any changes to supply and demand. Advocates of a free market traditionally consider the term to imply that the means of production is under private and not state control or co-operative ownership.

The theory holds that within an ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property rights without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor are they coerced by a third party (such as by government via transfer payments) and they engage in trade simply because they both consent and believe that what they are getting is worth more than or as much as what they give up. Price is the result of buying and selling decisions.

Rawls ian ideology; difference principle: Rawls believed in the equality of people and for that he used a method of Orignal position through veil of ignorance to formulate his theory of justice; principle of justice and difference principles. Rawls said The fairest rules are those to which everyone would agree, if they do not know how much power they would have. Following this he formulated a hypothetical condition of original position, which can only be attained when people forget about their class, race, authority, power and other social attributes of individuals and once everyone has done it, then stars a bargaining process between individuals on deciding the rules and code of conduct to be formulated. Here all are free to form their own conception of good until it is not affecting anyone else and others in original position dont have any problem with it. Since people in original position do not know about their standing in the society and which end they are going to fall so rules made here are thus ones which are beneficial for the whole society not a group or few, for e.g. nobody will agree to slavery in the original position as they do not know which class they are going to fall in either masters or servants whereas is they would have known the fact that theyll be masters, they would certainly have agreed to the slavery. So since nobody knows where the or she will fall once outside original position, so for those who conception of good which makes them fall under lower socio eco class would then be supported by those in upper class, this way each conception is respected so that it can continue. And here comes the difference principle of rawls that greatest benefit should go to the needy and thre should be equal opportunities for all. Difference principle: The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society. Rawls believes that this principle would be a rational choice for the representatives in the original position for the following reason:

Each member of society has an equal claim on their societys goods. Natural attributes should not effect this claim, so the basic right of any individual, before further considerations are taken into account, must be to an equal share in material wealth. What, then, could justify unequal distribution? Rawls argues that inequality is acceptable only if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off.

Critique to free maret economy: Rwals condemns the wealth distribution In free market economy. In free market economy since wealth is accumulated in the hands of few, the model assumes and believes in the trickledown effect which in the context of free market means the rich by becoming richer will benefit the poor by growing the overall economy, this way poor will get jobs etc and will get benefitted by the growth of rich. Whereas as per the rawlsian The Difference Principle regulates inequalities: it only permits inequalities that work to the advantage of the worst-off. Rawls' argument is more accurately expressed as a system where wealth "diffuses up. By guaranteeing the worstoff in society a fair deal, Rawls compensates for naturally-occurring inequalities (talents that one is born with, such as a capacity for sport).