Adam Smith's theory of justice seems sketchy and anaemic to modern eyes. It is often described as 'thin' because it included only three rules of justice that must be guaranteed by law: 

• Life 
• Property 
• Personal rights

 “What about inequality and social justice?!” the people cry. In this age of Affluence and Consumerism, surely any theory of justice must include everyone's right to have an equal amount of stuff and equal access to all the good things in life, so that it’s fair?
​

These days it seems that most people align themselves with either the political left or the political right. This rigid and simplistic dichotomy creates a lot of confusion as people try to dig up all the philosophers from ages past with the aim of classifying them as either left or right within the modern political lexicon. Hence the epic battle for Adam Smith’s legacy. If Adam Smith still walked the earth, would he be a left-leaning liberal or a right-leaning liberal? Is Smith's natural liberalism leftish or rightish? Does his defence of freedom mean that he was conservative? Does his defence of the poor mean that he was socialist?

There are two kinds of equality – formal equality and substantive equality. The idea that all men are born equal expresses formal equality, and everybody agrees with that. But the idea that everybody should have the same amount of wealth expresses substantive equality, and that's a bit more difficult to justify. Why should people be equal in relation to the amount of stuff they have? Why is it unfair for someone else to have more stuff than you? Why do you get to specify exactly how much more they're allowed to have, before you start feeling that it's 'too much'?