Pretty much all the classic anarcho-capitalist / right-Libertarian thinkers make the case that /only/ a system based on strong individual property rights and free exchange can be just. (The better anarchists just disagree with them ;) )

Classics:
Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Nozick (sort of a direct response to John Rawls, so pretty much overtly concerned with the justice question)
All Murray Rothbard, esp Ethics of Liberty
Lysander Spooner's essays

From the mutualism bent, which still has a strong emphasis on free markets and justice, Kevin Carson is doing the best writing

So I guess you're looking for more than just Nozick?

In terms of economists, you can definitely lots of stuff along these lines in the works of Ronald Coase and Gary Becker.

Thanks guys, I am looking for arguments beyond nozick and the typical meritocratic arguments (because I already have them - not because they aren't good arguments), not looking to argue with you or them I just need to make a case to argue for property and exchange --> just society. Much appreciated!

Was there ever any good follow-up of Rawls' ToJ? I loved that book.

...but it isn't just.

Draugnar already gave you one, just quote the Goblin King and be done with it.

I agree synapse, but I have an abundance of arguments against it and need to be able to do both sides

hm, maybe you should try Amrtya Sen "In Defense of Globalization".

Besides, it would be really helpful to know what kind of arguments you are looking for. There's the bunch of libertarian authors already mentioned or common place, which base their arguments in rather idealtypical fashion. Then you could find pragmatist argumentations that stand in a Kantian tradition - "Perpetual Peace" by himself, then if you like really interesting foundations, I suggest Herbert Mead, who provides a more in depth account of why free trade might just be "just" because it allows human being AND social groups to best develop themselves.

And always a good read on the subject are the classics, among Richard Cobden and Frédéric Bastiat make the best case on the connections between free trade and societal access to goods (in both writing and deed). Further arguments in this direction can be extracted from modern political theory that focus on interests of protection: Mancur Olson's interest group theory is probably the best starting point here. He provides a formal account of the problems described by Cobden and Bastiat. And formal is always better.

Try Ayn Rand.

DO NOT try Ayn Rand :) It is a waste of time…

He's looking for free market arguments, and Ayn Rand is a free marketer. Just because you don't' agree with her (most likely you have never read her either, but are just parroting your intellectual ilk...) doesn't mean she doesn't have merit for his purposes.

X3n0n haven't you learned yet that any disagreement with the mighty krellin necessarily stems from academic brainwashing? Clearly ANYBODY who bothers to THINK for THEMSELVES instead of SPOUTING *LIBERAL* PROPAGANDA would end up AGREEING with krellin.

Duh you fucking zombie.

Seriously though, he's right. She did do some nonfiction (that nobody ever read because it's crap) that does apply to what OP is looking for.

At the risk of being Captain Obvious, doesn't Adam Smith posit that the free market not only can be, but necessarily is, just?

Well krellin, I admit that I didn't read Rand thoroughly. I started with her "Virtue of Selfishness", but then dropped it because she didn't provide other arguments than those by Nozick or Buchanan. The major difference was that the latter wrote more clear and precise. As I didn't need to read any philosophy in order to know how I should think, I decided it were a waste of time. Also, as I understood SD, he was looking for good arguments that don't belong to the typical free marketeers. In these two senses, I think Ayn Rand is a waste of time. And yes, I am parroting my intellectual ilk :) I should write my thesis, instead…

Rand doesn't make arguments; her works are just bad prose and mental masturbation. Stick to serious thinkers if you want more than mental masturbation.

Nozick, which Socrates has said he is already familiar with, is at a much higher level than Rand and makes a much more compelling case that modern private property rights are just. If you've got Nozick down, Rand is only good for a few laughs.

YJ, u just took my words out of my mouth :)

@hecks, I guess the argument was about free exchange…

@hecks: in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith says quite a bit about questions mostly peripheral to how just modern private property is, IMO. It's kind of a weird take that is a little disjointed from our mostly Lockean conception of property rights.

Thanks all

Actually, this conversation got me started reading up on the basics of objectivism (i.e. wikipedia) - it's an interesting philosophy, and it's strange how much I'm either in complete agreement with some things and others I'm like, "what, how did you get THERE?"

Again, you need to define what constitutes being "just". "Just" is like "truth", everyone has their own views.

But good luck with your reading and, if it is research for a paper, remember to define in clear terms your arguments premise of what constitutes being a "just" or "unjust" economic system.

Thanks draug, I think I'm going to use different conceptions of just and examine the arguments in the context of each, but we'll see.

It's just because, unlike the alternatives, it allows people to do what they wish for whatever reasons they like. If you severely curtail private property, then in one way or another, you're talking about restricting the right of contract, and imposing from the outside the conditions for which people will work, which deprives them of their liberty for no crime, and is unjust.

(The vast oversimplifications inherent in the above response should be obvious, but it is an approximation).

"I admit that I didn't read Rand thoroughly..."

I'm not shocked **at all**. As is typical with these forums, anything libertarian/conservative that is bashed by the general populous here, be it Fox News, a piece of legislation, the Bible, etc, is most often bashed by those that have no personal experience with the object of said bashing, but are simply parroting their teacher/professor/friend/parents/favorite website/etc. The lack of intellectual integrity around here is sometimes astounding, especially since, generally speaking, I think this site supports a crowd of people with above-average intellect. Which means the low-information crowd remaining in society is *realllllly* low information....

In other words, you stand in "good" company with your foolish comments...

@ Stackabel "Rand doesn't make arguments; her works are just bad prose and mental masturbation..."

You, sir, are bad prose...bad prose as compared to what? the world is full of bad prose and worthless drivel. At least her's makes a point, though I object to the characterization of it being ":bad" per se.

That being said, he was asking for something DIFFERENT that the usual suspects. Therefore, Rand offers her arguments in a different form -- i.e. acted out in a "suppose this were true..." story.

I'm sure that all of your dusty old relics of thought that you suggest he refer to make arguments, and then say, "so, for example, if this were true, this is how society would look..." rand simply jumps to the chase and says "This is how society looks..." in her stories and hopes (and foolish thing...) that the reader will be able to derive the philosophy from the tale she weaves. Big deal...same thing as the intellectual bullshit you all seem to thrive on.

Rand criticisms aside, I don't think you can criticize anyone who has written so lengthy a book as Atlas Shrugged, and achieved a level of commercial success with it, that anyone on this forum would dream of.

SYnapse - you are making the mistake of believing that:
1. The criticism comes from someone that *actually* read her works, and;
2. The criticism is actually about her prose, as opposed to the criticizers understanding of her philosophy.

Most likely, the criticizer has not read and does not understand...just placing my bets...