John Rawls and Socialism Versus Free Market

The response to pasted below takes direct aim at John Rawls:

Another way, a traditional way, of describing the founding mindset of our country goes this way:  Equality of opportunity but not equality of results.  This reflects the need for a strong work ethic as the pioneers laid the foundations for our country.  They could not afford to carry huge welfare case loads, so each person needed to work, seize opportunity.  Today, we guarantee outcomes, result, whether folks work or not.  I share this perspective to rebut John Rawls.  Equality of results, outcomes does not occur automatically.  Somebody has to produce the goods, services that create the outcomes.  This requires a work ethic.  As the Bible puts it, "If any would not work, neither should he eat."  If you work, of course, a fair outcome, result, prosperity should be your reward, which is why I support and have belonged to labor unions during my career.  If you are unwilling to work, "tough." In short, this writer sees no ethical problem between equality of opportunity (williing to work) without equality of outcomes (unwilling to work).  It is the difference, if you like, to use other language, between a free-market society and socialism.  Dr. Rux