Hayek claimed that the idea of social justice is meaningless in a market economy because in that context, no identifiable agent intentionally brings about the distribution of wealth. But the assumption that the existence of injustice entails an identifiable agent of injustice is erroneous. Moreover, Hayek ignores the fact that in a market economy, the broad pattern of economic outcomes is foreseeable even if detailed, person‐by‐person outcomes are not. Hayek's rejection of the idea of social justice reveals a striking naïveté (...) about his own ethical presuppositions. (shrink)

David Johnston 's Rejoinder to my defense of Hayek's critique of social justice, though it has the merit of attempting to deal with Hayek's claim that the very idea of social justice is incoherent, fails to undermine that defense. Johnston 's suggested counterexample to Hayek's claim that talk of an injustice presupposes an agency responsible for the injustice is not even prima facie plausible; he overlooks crucial disanalogies between the pursuit of social justice and the pursuit of other social goals; (...) and he fails to understand the distinction between Hayek's case against social justice and his case for the market. (shrink)