Free and Equal: What Would a Fair Society Look Like?

by Daniel Chandler

Una obra imprescindible para comprender el pensamiento y la obra de John Rawls, uno de los filósofos políticos más importantes del siglo xx.

Imagina que estás diseñando una sociedad. No sabes quién serás en rico o pobre, hombre o mujer, gay o hetero. ¿Cómo te gustaría que fuera esa sociedad? 

John Rawls, el filósofo político más importante del siglo xx, propuso este revolucionario experimento mental. Hoy, en Libres e Iguales, el economista y filósofo Daniel Chandler nos propone una estimulante y ambiciosa intervención en la que nos invita a redescubrir a Rawls para encontrar una salida a las crecientes crisis que están devastando nuestro mundo. 

A partir del liberalismo humano e igualitario de Rawls, Chandler formula un minucioso e irresistible argumento a favor de una agenda progresista que redefinirá fundamentalmente nuestro mundo, para mejorarlo. El autor nos demuestra cómo podemos proteger la libertad de expresión y superar las guerras culturales, eliminar el dinero de la política y crear una economía en la que todo el mundo tenga la oportunidad de alcanzar su potencial, en la que la prosperidad sea ampliamente compartida y que opere dentro de los límites de nuestro planeta finito. 

Libres e iguales desborda esperanza y es una alentadora alternativa al cinismo que impregna nuestra política y que no solo tiene el potencial de transformar el debate contemporáneo, sino también de convertirse en un referente para un liberalismo moderno e igualitario. Esta obra fortalecerá el lugar de Rawls en el discurso político y consolidará firmemente a Chandler como una nueva voz esencial para nuestro tiempo.

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction

432 pages, Paperback

Published April 11, 2024

About the author

Daniel Chandler (born 1952) is a British visual semiotician based (since 2001) at the department of Theatre, Film and Television Studies at Aberystwyth University (where he has taught since 1989). His best-known publication is Semiotics: The Basics (Routledge: 1st edn 2002, 2nd edn 2007), which is frequently used as a basis for University courses in semiotics,and the online version 'Semiotics for Beginners' (online since 1995). He has a particular interest in the visual semiotics of gender and advertising.

Trained as a schoolteacher at Magdalene College, Cambridge, Chandler began his career teaching English in middle and high school classrooms in the 1970s and 1980s. He adopted a progressive, constructivist philosophy of education at a time when microcomputers were first introduced into the classroom. Resisting the hyped image of computing in education as a boon to instructional productivity, Chandler recognized the computer as a tool for learning, but he rejected a prevailing objectivism that considered data as information, and information as knowledge. He held a constructivist view that data is translated into information by human beings, not computers, and humans negotiate the meaning of information by means of dialog and discussion (Chandler, 1990a). The computer, for Chandler, was not a teaching machine, but a medium of expression for young learners. His early adoption of computers in the classroom led to the publication of several authored and edited texts related to computing in education. He left the classroom in 1981 and set up an independent consultancy, notably serving as a design consultant for Acornsoft on the development of educational software for use by the BBC.

In 1989, Chandler returned to academia, joining the Education department at Aberystwyth University. His initial role as a lecturer in educational technology soon shifted to that of a lecturer in media theory, and in 2001 he moved to the department of Theatre, Film, and Television Studies as a lecturer in Media and Communication Studies.

His (1993) dissertation on 'The Experience of Writing' focused on the phenomenology of writing. That work led to the (1995) text, 'The Act of Writing' which he posted freely on the World Wide Web. Where the tendency of most authors had been to withhold their work from online access for multiple reasons, Chandler was never so inhibited. Self publishing 'The Act of Writing' was one of multiple experiments that he launched in an exploration of the Web's possibilities as a medium for teaching. In 1994 he began placing lecture materials online for use by his own students. This practice of open access proved successful and rewarding. As the richness of this material evolved in the ensuing months, and as the population of Internet users exploded in the mid 1990s, Chandler's site quickly attracted an international audience of students, scholars, and mediaphiles hungry for rewarding academic content. The MCS Web offered tangible content that went beyond the typical outlines, bibliographies and promotional material hosted on most academic and commercial sites of the time. The Media and Communications Studies site established itself as a premier online academic resource for theoretical and educational material in the fields of Rhetoric, Communication Studies, Semiotics, Media, and Contemporary Philosophy.

Chandler's teaching has straddled the spectrum of communication studies, though a significant focus of his work has centered on contemporary philosophies of communication, and specifically on Semiotics. Chandler's initial frustration as a lecturer was the severe lack of lucid and cogent introductory texts on the subject (Chandler, 2002, p. xv). This led him to prepare a series of materials on semiotics, written in a language and style that would be comprehensible to his own undergraduate students. He placed these lectures on the World Wide Web to augment the already rich set of openly accessible materials that he had p

Reviews

[Jana Rađa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Free and Equal: What Would a Fair Society Look Like? (2023), by economist and philosopher Daniel Chandler, offers a compelling call to revive modern liberalism through the lens of John Rawls’s political philosophy. Chandler, a former policy advisor and fellow at the London School of Economics, approaches the subject with both academic rigour and a clear concern for practical relevance.

I first encountered the book through a review—possibly in The Guardian—and was intrigued enough to order it alongside Robert Sapolsky’s Determined. It proved to be a dense but rewarding read. Chandler doesn’t shy away from complexity, and I found myself taking it slowly, pausing often to annotate and reflect.

The book opens with an account of the growing crisis facing liberal democracy: public disenchantment, the rise of right-wing populism, economic insecurity, and the absence of a compelling alternative vision of fairness and justice. Chandler argues that the work of John Rawls, especially his seminal A Theory of Justice (1971), provides the intellectual foundation needed to construct a more just society.

The first half of Free and Equal is a lucid and accessible summary of Rawls’s ideas, covering not only the major principles of his theory but also the debates and criticisms it has attracted from across the ideological spectrum. The second half applies these principles to contemporary challenges—economic inequality, political dysfunction, climate change—showing how Rawls’s framework might guide reform in the real world.

To understand Chandler’s project, it’s helpful to revisit Rawls himself. John Rawls (1921–2002) is widely considered one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century.

Rawls published three main books. The first, A Theory of Justice, focused on distributive justice and attempted to reconcile the competing claims of the values of freedom and equality. The second, Political Liberalism, addressed the question of how citizens divided by intractable religious and philosophical disagreements could come to endorse a constitutional democratic regime. The third, The Law of Peoples, focused on the issue of global justice.

A Theory of Justice laid out a model of ‘justice as fairness’, grounded in the social contract tradition but reshaped for a modern, pluralistic society.

Central to Rawls’s theory is the thought experiment of the original position. Behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, individuals are asked to choose principles for society without knowing their own social status—gender, class, race, abilities, or religious beliefs. This ensures that the principles they agree upon will be just and impartial. Rawls believed that from this hypothetical standpoint, rational agents would choose two fundamental principles of justice:

1. The Liberty Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to basic liberties—freedom of speech, religion, conscience, political participation, and so on.
2. The Equality Principle, which has two parts: (a) Fair Equality of Opportunity—people with similar abilities and motivation should have roughly equal chances in life. (b) The Difference Principle—social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.

Though Rawls’s style was academically dense and his personal demeanour famously private, his ideas have had profound influence not only in philosophy but in law, political theory, and activism. Notably, protestors at Tiananmen Square in 1989 held up copies of A Theory of Justice as a symbol of democratic aspiration.

That said, Rawls’s approach has not gone unchallenged. Critics from the left have questioned whether his principles go far enough in addressing systemic injustice, and whether his anti-meritocratic stance—viewing talents as morally arbitrary—can be reconciled with common intuitions about reward and responsibility. His views have inspired developments such as luck egalitarianism and debates over basic income, though these ideas remain controversial.

What Chandler does in Free and Equal is to bring Rawls’s abstract ideas back into public discourse, not as mere academic exercises but as tools for political renewal. While some readers may find his reliance on Rawls overly exclusive, Chandler’s effort to craft a hopeful and coherent vision of justice in a time of deep disillusionment is admirable—and perhaps, urgently necessary.

In a democratic society, justice is not an abstract ideal but a shared moral responsibility. Citizens collectively shape the basic structure of their society, and in doing so, bear responsibility for the consequences it has on one another’s lives. Rawls’s theory of justice proposes a vision of fairness grounded in mutual respect, institutional design, and future sustainability.

Chandler interprets Rawls’s framework as operating on three interrelated levels:
• Domestic: the basic political, legal, and economic structures of society—the institutions that shape citizens’ rights, opportunities, and life prospects.
• Local: the cultural and associational sphere, including families, religious communities, and voluntary organisations, where personal values and identities are nurtured.
• Global: the relationships between states, with particular emphasis on global distributive justice between wealthy and impoverished nations.

Across all three levels, Rawls’s core demand is that the basic structure of society must be justified to all citizens as free and equal. This means not only securing formal equality—e.g. equal rights under the law—but also ensuring the fair value of political liberties. Chandler highlights this to underscore a vital Rawlsian concern: democracy must not be hollowed out by economic inequality. In a just society, money should not determine political influence.

Basic liberties, under Rawls’s first principle of justice, are inviolable except when they come into conflict with other basic liberties. For example, a religious majority cannot invoke its moral views to restrict the freedoms of a minority group. Similarly, freedom of speech does not protect incitement to violence, since allowing such speech would endanger the safety and liberty of others. In Rawls’s model, the state must remain neutral among competing conceptions of the good life—it cannot enforce any particular moral or religious doctrine.

A recurring tension explored in Free and Equal is between equality of opportunity and parental freedom. Chandler recognises that some parental advantages—reading to children, encouraging learning—are intrinsic to loving relationships and should not be restricted. However, society may justifiably limit the purchasable advantages that entrench inequality—such as elite tutoring, private schooling, or nepotistic access to internships. The aim is not to erase all differences, but to prevent unequal starting points from locking in lifelong advantage. Fair equality of opportunity requires that background circumstances not predetermine one’s prospects.

Chandler, following Rawls, offers a sharp critique of meritocracy. While individuals should indeed be encouraged to develop their talents, the rewards—whether economic or professional—must ultimately serve the least advantaged in society. For example, doctors and teachers deserve fair compensation for their years of training and the essential contributions they make to the well-being of all. But their higher earnings are justifiable only insofar as they contribute to improving the lives of those worst off. This is the logic of the difference principle: social and economic inequalities are acceptable only if they work to the advantage of the least privileged. This principle also operates in tandem with the just savings principle, which requires that we structure the economy in ways that ensure ecological sustainability while maximising the living standards of the poorest.

Who counts as least advantaged? According to Chandler’s reading, this refers broadly to the bottom half of the income distribution. The goal is not strict equality of outcomes, but fair lifetime opportunities—while still holding individuals responsible for how they make use of those opportunities. The principle supports a universal basic income (UBI) to provide a foundation of security, but further prosperity requires personal effort.

UBI is also a response to modern economic realities, such as the rise of artificial intelligence and the decline of stable employment. It would offer people the means to survive during retraining and job transitions, and would also shift power dynamics by allowing workers to leave exploitative jobs. In the precarious gig economy, UBI would enable a degree of autonomy and bargaining power that markets alone cannot provide.

Chandler also explores Rawls’s concern for intergenerational justice. The just savings principle states that each generation must preserve the conditions necessary for a just society. Today, that entails a strong commitment to environmental sustainability and climate justice. Rawls suggests that future generations should be treated as we would have wanted past generations to treat us.
Economic tools to achieve these goals might include progressive taxation on income and wealth, a universal inheritance, or a sovereign citizens’ wealth fund. In addition, Chandler endorses the idea that the state should act as employer of last resort—not to generate meaningless jobs, but to provide dignified employment for those unable to find work, while prioritising retraining and job matching in sectors with genuine demand.

Rawls was aware of the limitations of ideal theory. His vision, although powerful, can seem abstract—divorced from political reality and historical contingency. He asked what a just society should look like, rather than how to bring it about. Chandler is sensitive to this critique but treats Rawls’s work as a normative aspiration rather than a blueprint. The theory is intended to orient our moral thinking, not dictate immediate policy.

In polarised debates—whether over abortion, sexuality, or free speech—Rawls offers a reframing. Political liberalism is not about moral supremacy or cultural dominance, but mutual respect. Citizens are free to hold personal beliefs (e.g. that homosexuality is sinful or abortion is immoral), but they may not seek to impose these views through state coercion. Instead, politics should be conducted in a spirit of civility, with a readiness to listen and compromise, even where we deeply disagree.

This ethic of public reason stems from Rawls’s original position—a hypothetical role-play designed to help citizens identify fair political principles without privileging any one worldview in a pluralistic society. It asks us to put ourselves in others’ shoes and consider their perspectives, then choose principles that everyone could reasonably accept. The point of this thought experiment is to remind us that all people hold deep, non-negotiable commitments. Just as we would never want to live in a society that forced us to reject our religion or our loved ones, so too must we respect that others feel the same.

For instance, on transgender rights, Rawlsian liberalism does not require that we all agree on metaphysical claims about gender. Rather, it demands that the state refrain from imposing a single view, and that citizens treat one another with courtesy, dignity and goodwill. Civility, not consensus, is the foundation of public reason.

Ultimately, Rawls’s theory asks us to reimagine society not as a contest for dominance, but as a cooperative venture among free and equal individuals. Chandler’s Free and Equal helps to recover this vision for an age of inequality, cultural conflict and ecological crisis.

So, what did I think of the book—especially as someone who doesn’t often read political philosophy? Overall, I found it to be a very good book. Rawls’s core idea resonates with my own sense of justice, and Chandler explains it clearly and thoughtfully. That said, I often felt the argument was too abstract—focused more on the ‘what’ than the ‘how’. Fortunately, the second half redeems this with its turn toward real-world applications.

Still, I couldn’t help thinking that the people who most need to read this book—those with rigid, self-serving worldviews—probably never will. Instead, it’s likely to appeal to readers who are already more reflective, less preoccupied with personal gain, and more concerned with the common good. But for whoever does pick it up, there’s a lot to be gained.

[Dessylyly · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s a very convincing case - that we need (or more so the actual political parties) a cohesive moral vision, something tangible like Rawl’s original position thought experiment, something easy to discuss, pick apart, refer back to. Anything that makes it much easier for everyone to engage politically because who out here has the energy to be going over individual policies? In this economy?

Overall it’a a refreshing, pleasant read. Hopeful yet pragmatic. (Depressing only if I apply these principles to the Philippines and realise how incredibly far away we are from it ha)

Some key points I really liked were its ability to grasp the friction of how things take place usually in real life - though it champions compromises there is space for our potential as humans to act in emotional, irrational ways which usually undermines bargaining and reaching a shared consensus for what is fair. It definitely is an incredible thought experiment/underpinning philosophy to have on one’s disposal as it’s so grounded in empathy (though to what extent we could empathise is debatable considering we will always be limited by our own lived experience). On a more personal note this was an amazing reflective practice for me who has been on either ends of the political spectrum at some point, it made me come to the realisation that perhaps I’m not as much of an idealist as I thought, nor was I as radical. My beliefs around the concept of property, economic justice being this strive for fairness rather than complete equality etc. were productively challenged. I think it’d be good to follow this up with a book regarding degrowth or decolonisation just to further challenge the idea of a market-based economy in general but overall this book really does make a great case for how so many practical changes are viable in our current system. Reforms over revolution.

[Eratw Koromia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book envisions a fairer world, based on the theories of philosopher John Rawls, and providing practical examples in how we can achieve this. The first half of the book starts from introducing to its readers who John Rawls was, his ideas, their importance and how they can be used for improving our societies, while providing a thorough overview of critique against these ideas. The second half, which is also more practical and engaging, explores how Rawl's theories can be linked to education, politics, sustainability, economics and more, presenting the arguments with real-life examples and sources and acknowledging some obstacles, thus being fairly reasonable.

I did feel some arguments were relatively weaker than others, as the author is an economist and presents a strong case for the arguments in that domain, yet this doesn't apply that much for other type of arguments i.e what should be considered basic liberties. Nevertheless, it provides great insight in how deeply flawed our societies are currently, with some concerning trends arising around the globe, and sheds light into social issues such as who truly has access to a political life or education.I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in social justice, but as well as economists, businesspeople, policy-makers etc.

[Melissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

The authors ideas have great premise I understand it’s based on John Rawls theories I did however start to find it a bit tedious John Rawls was mentioned on the same page a fair few times on every page I would have liked more of the authors thoughts and feelings regarding the idea of a free and equal society and how to go about getting it.
Daniel Chandler is definitely an admirer of John Rawls from the notes in the book it is plain to see he’s taken great care explaining society, how it could and should be over how it is and why it is and what could and should be done to make it fairer. While at points as it’s written as any fan would write about anyone they admire it’s slightly annoying but it is very clear Daniel Chandlers passion I hope to read more about his own stand alone thoughts and feelings and I do hope this gets read by many as it will definitely open the eyes of the blind who see nothing wrong with the way greed comes before morality in this day and age more than ever before the gap between the have and the have nots the moral compass of the leaders and people in general which is in a very sad state.

[Bart de Waart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dit boek was een van de meest inzichtelijke en interessante boeken die ik ooit heb gelezen. Ik had nog nooit een politiek filosofisch boek gelezen, maar het gedachtegoed beviel me erg goed. Het filosoferen over een rechtvaardige samenleving, aan de hand van duidelijke gedachteexperimenten en voorbeelden vond ik erg boeiend. Het boek is vol van gedachten die af en toe tijd om te ontleden nodig hebben. Naar het einde toe vond ik het boek daardoor een beetje vermoeiend worden. Ik denk dat ik zeker het eerste gedeelte nog een keer zal lezen.

[Samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting attempt to provide the practical framework for introducing Rawlsian economics/politics -some arguments felt weaker than others but overall well put together and very interesting. First half or so of the book largely is a summary of Rawls' work but the second half is where it starts to be applied.

[Luca Schönhof · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ich möchte die Theorie die im Buch erläutert wurde und kann dem Autor zustimmen. Für mich persönlich war der Anfang ziemlich kompliziert zu verstehen, was jedoch daran liegen könnte das ich das Buch auf englisch gelesen haben.

[James Newton · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a well paced reflection and argument for the original book and papers. It is well researched and ideas effectively communicated.

[Cathy Davies · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cannot rate this read highly enough. A call to action with excellent plans to build on.