Legal scholarship has a very complex and awkward relationship with the idea of 'efficiency'. Scholars like to think that they are promoting social justice in all its forms, and unfortunately the idea of efficiency doesn't seem to be extremely honourable, being connected as it is with capitalist markets and correlated associations such as greed, selfishness, and, most embarrassing of all, great wealth. It therefore seems impossible to write about efficiency without sounding like a cruel person who cares nothing about the milk of human kindness.

​Private property is often criticised for failing to promote equality: with private property rights, some people inevitably end up with more than others. Is this unjust, on grounds that economic “equality” is an essential component of justice? We know that justice is a good thing (nobody would argue that injustice is an admirable goal to aspire to) but does it follow logically that the full force of the law should be harnessed to equalize everything? Equal amounts of stuff, equal pay for all working people especially if they're women, equal benefits for all unworking people and equal opportunities for all to have an equally good life. Everything should be equally distributed. Because otherwise it’s not fair.