This is not serious stuff concerning the conditions of an existing state such as Sweden but some philosophical speculations of a highly abstract nature. We as humans share a certain amount of needs. We want to eat, drink, love and be loved. We want to feel that we are parts of the society and that our existence matters.
The principle of respect of others oblige me to tolerate whatever choice you make, or decision you take, or thought you think - as long as the same rights are granted to me. Axiomatically we say that prima facie (that is one thing considered) we ought to strive for as a free society as possible and for an as equal society as possible. This sounds like John Rawls and a property-owning democracy way of thinking. That is fine because I deeply admire that position. But to talk about justice is difficult. As a reader or listener you may think that the author or speaker wants to hide something when he or she elaborates on the subject. It may seem as the philosopher in question wants to camouflage an unjust society by som abstract theory of justice. And which kind of decision procedur is at hand for you to apeal to if you consider something wrong? Is a just society possible? Does the philosophers who talk about justice mislead people to think that an impossible equality is possible?
We do not need a fictious original position if we talk about respect and not about justice. Liberty and equality are still conditions we dream of and we consider it a mission for the politicians to balance between the two.
It is to show respect to a starving person to give her food, to a lonely person to visit her. The holy texts of the religions have a capacity to guide us if listened to.
It is not my job to live your life. And vice versa. If we want freedom to act and to speach, etcetera, and equality, as we axiomatically stated, we prefer to give a certain amount of money to the citizens. They may not starve given this Citizen Pay. We have a personal account in a bank of our choosing. Every bank is connected to a Central bank. The individuals are on a reglar basis buying goods from the supermarkets, departement stores etcetera. The Citizen Pay monthly given will uphold a market for the most basic supply. To earn money private corporations compete to give what the accountholding consumers want. To earn more they hire folk to do work for them. As an assurance for the quality of their products they give the costumeres medical assurances. Doctors and other medical experts compete to become hired in these service facilities, hospitals. We can, out of respect of others weaker then we, accept some schematic financing of the hospitals that the supermarkets are responsible for. This is an holistic view of the individuals and the society.
The supermarkets may contract people to run libraries and museums. That becomes attractions for the custumers and shows the public that those engaged in the business responsible for this have other interest than just to sell candy.
We may ask what more do we need? Police and fire departements of course. It was not private companies that forbade black people to study at universities or to sit at what benk in the park they wanted. That was decisions camouflaged as laws, laws of a state.
