His theory is an attempt at removal of some of the shortcomings of Rawls' theory. Dworkin takes a so called envy-test as the criterion of just distribution. This test says that distribution of goods is not satisfactory if after it a person envies someone else because a bundle of resources he has received. This problem is resolved with the help of an auction in which everyone gets the same initial amount of money that enables him to bid for all the resources that are at disposal of this community. The meaning of this procedure is to ensure that an individual must sacrifice more of his initial resources to get a good that is highly valued by others, and much less if he bids for something that is not so popular. However, such an auction could satisfy the envy-test only if there were no great differences among people in respect of their personal abilities and talents. Since this is not so, and since Dworkin wants to prevent that anyone suffers or profits because of his (undeserved) natural abilities, a new procedure must be introduced. Thus, the auction is supplemented by insurance. That is, it is supposed that people in the moment of auction do not know whether they have some mental of physical handicap, whether talents they posses are in demand on the market or not, and the like. In such circumstances everyone rational would like to buy insurance against these risks, so one part of their initial sum intended for the auction would be used for this purpose too. The amount invested for insurance would go to the common fund from which those who turn to be handicapped or insufficiently talented would be supported. The main ambition of this theory is to remove impact (on the distribution of goods) of the factors that are not under control of individuals and to allow influence only of such ones that are under personal control. Dworkin's scheme has to be implemented in practice by complex tax and money-transfer system of the welfare state.

   
   
  John Rawls
  Ronald Dworkin
  Right Libertarianism
Left Libertarianism
  Utilitarianism
  Pluralism
  Strict Egalitarianism
   
  Bibliography >