Rawslian theory is a justified form of government.

Thanks for the debate! I'll try to follow the format my opponent used, for the sake of clarity and convenience. Universal consent: The OP is specifically defined to comprise of rational deliberators who are set with the agenda of figuring out social policies - this is a hypothetical, so I need not 'prove' that they will come into agreement, it is already assumed in the thought experiment! You hint that there could be different sets of policies that would be "equally rational", but how would I make sense of this except to accuse you of epistemological relativism? It's not in the same sense of risk-aversion not being inherently rational over risk-taking, but that's because such psychological dispositions are to be non-rationally evaluated. However, if we have two or more conflicting social policies (i.e. one promoting welfare and the other not), then we CAN'T have them being both equally rational. Furthermore, Rawls specifically states that the rational deliberators will have the same set of interests and background information because of the veil of ignorance - given they are to dutifully acquire the best deal for their client, and given that they all have no substantive knowledge of their client, the rational deliberators are at an equal standing in terms of motivations. The OP isn't a bargaining committee like the UN, it's moreso of a selection process. Again, the OP is a thought experiment! Risk-aversion: To refresh, Rawls states that even for the risk-takers, it is rational for them to want to preserve the fundamental aspects of their lives that allows for their risky activities (such as position in society, upbringing, etc.). In other words, it is rational for risk-takers to want to be able to take more risks in the future! Be reminded of Rawls take on the veil of ignorance: it isn't simply uncertaintly or risk, you are ignorant of your client's position in society! And that also means you are ignorant of the probabilities of where you will end up in society, meaning you can't do any risk analysis given you don't know the numbers or percentages in play. Given that further factor, it seems much more rational to prefer the Difference principle and Liberty principle. Actual vs. Hypothetical Consent: Don't fool yourself, it isn't some elitist attitude Rawls presumes with positing the OP - as I've stated before, this is a thought experiment meant to help us figure out virtuous social policies. Or rather, it's more of a heuristic device that we can utilize as real people in this real world to figure out political building blocks. There is nothing elitist about it - it's an ethical argument, nothing more. To make an analogy, let's say I propose that there is a hypothetical committee filled with people who are in-tune with moral understanding. In other words, they are so smart they can figure out what is morally correct. I then argue that whatever agreements the committee come to, is what is moral. Does it matter if this actually happened? Of course not, it's just to serve as a device for us inperfect humans to figure out how to function in this world. In conclusion, I want to end with the repeated proclamation that there not being an actual contract has on bearing on Rawls' theory. His social contractarian theory is considerably more abstract than his predecessors partly given the nature of the OP - it is a perspective we are to consider in moral reasoning. It's actual existence is a nonissue.