当代最著名的政治哲学理论家罗尔斯在其名著《正义的理论》中提出正义的两项基本原则：其一，每个人均有与其他人所拥有的相似的最充分的基本自由的平等权利； 其二，社会和经济的不平等得按下述两种途径安排：（1）合理预期按每个人的利益；（2）政府公职平等向社会公众开放。罗尔斯解释道：公民的基等自由权大致包括：政治自由（投票权和有资格担任公职）与言论与结社自由；信仰自由和思想自由；拥有私有财产的权利和自由；免受法治定义之任意逮捕与搜查的自由。由于中共国的实践在各方面与罗尔斯的正义理论的两项基本原则完全背道而驰，既不存在公民平等的政治自由和政治权利，也没有任何公平合理的公职向社会公众平等开放的任何可能；因而中共暴政成为全球最极度不公不义的山寨国是必然的；不过，更重要的是正如政治理论家Rainer Forst 先生在其批评罗尔斯的正义论之“正义的两种画面” （Two Pictures of Justice）指出：罗尔斯的正义两原则，仅涉及正义的一种画面，是一种“正义的语法”解释仅涉及分配正义，程序正义方面，而未触及更未阐明正义最重要的第一原则：政治权力归属的正当合法性；因为反抗非正义的基本冲动并非主要基于想要得到某种东西，而是不想受专制暴政的任意蹂躏宰割骚扰，要求统治的基本合法性。分配正义仅是第二步的问题，由谁决定政策和如何实施才是政治与社会正义最关健的头号问题。吾以为Forst 先生的立论与理由非常充分，更符合当今中国现实。因为正义首先涉及权力问题，与政府与人民及人与人之间的关系密切相关，不首先解决政治权力的合法性基础，亦即由谁制定法律与政策，决定谁能获得什么利益，要想根本解决社会政治正义问题是完全不可能的；正因为如此，罗尔斯在其正义理论中似乎有一项前提条件：“一个业已建立良好秩序的社会”；质言之，其正义理论仅适用于西方发达的自由民主社会，而不能直接适用于类似中共极权专制暴政此种罪恶的政治体制。Forst 先生的下述基本论点十分精彩：
“Political and social justice is a matter of how a context of political rule and social cooperation is constituted; and the first question in this regard is how individuals are involved in political and social relations generally and in the production of material and immaterial goods in particular, so that a result is just only if it is produced under conditions that can be accepted by all under conditions of non-domination”。
“Justice is not a criterion for universal levels of goods or for all efforts to overcome privation but for quite specific ones, namely, those which eliminate arbitrary rule – i.e. domination and exploitation. The primary demand of justice is not that human beings should obtain certain goods but that they should be agents equipped with equal rights within a social context”。
“a supreme principle holds within such a framework – namely, the principle of general and reciprocal justification – which states that every claim to goods, rights or liberties must be justified in a reciprocal and general manner, where one side may not simply project its reasons onto the other but has to justify itself discursively”.
“the central insight for the problem of political and social justice – namely, that the first question of justice is the question of power. For justice is not only a matter of which goods, for which reasons and in what amounts, should legitimately be allocated to whom, but in particular of how these goods come into the world in the first place and of who decides on their allocation and how this allocation is made”.
“the question of power is the first question of justice means that justice has its proper place where the central justifications for a social basic structure must be provided and the institutional ground rules are laid down which determine social life from the bottom up. Everything depends, if you will, on the relations of justification within a society”.
“This dignity is violated when individuals are regarded merely as recipients of redistributive measures and not as independent agents of justice”.
“a conceptual distinction between fundamental (minimal) and full (maximal) justice. Whereas the task of fundamental justice is to construct a basic structure of justification, the task of full justice is to construct a justified basic structure”.
“Fundamental justice is violated when primary justification power is not secured for all equally in the most important institutions”.