As the papers report community outrage about industry closures, job losses and massive corporate profits, economic rationalists argue that it is not fair to expect things to be otherwise. They insist that it is not fair for car manufacturers, pharmacists and local newsagencies to have their livelihoods protected by regulations and tariff barriers. They tell us it is not just for Australian clothes manufacturers to stay in business if their prices are undercut by low-cost imports. They argue that subsistence wages in sportshoe factories in Indonesia are fair, and that it is perfectly reasonable for company CEOs to be taking home seven-figure packages and share options. How can they defend this apparently irrational idea of justice?

The economic rationalist worldview considers that the natural order of the market is inherently just. That whatever outcomes the market spits out are good because the market created them. To convince an economic rationalist that governments should intervene, you must convince them that the market is failing. You must demonstrate that the market is not operating the way they claim it does. And in the process you must convince them that government would make things better rather than worse.

Let's pin down exactly what we mean by ‘justice’. Justice or ‘a fair go’ can be used to mean two quite different things and, as you might expect by now, these different definitions are based on different assumptions about the world.