I think this is very wrong. Rawls isn't liberalism, or at least A Theory of Justice isn't liberalism. Maybe he imagined it to be, but there is no actual relatio

I think this is very wrong. Rawls isn't liberalism, or at least A Theory of Justice isn't liberalism. Maybe he imagined it to be, but there is no actual relation to it. The equal opportunity principle is probably impossible in a society that permits large capital owners. Campaign donations are certainly right out, because there's always people on margins who can't afford to give them, and they do lead to people not have an opportunity to influence politics. People can imagine that Rawls' system is liberal, and I imagine he imagined it, but the reality is that liberalism is not an implementation of Rawls' system and there is in fact no connection between it and liberalism other than people's imaginings. It's like 'Here's an axiomatisation of arithmetic' and you find that it has nothing to do with arithmetic at all-- it's some kind of nonabelian not-even-a-ring which might exist, but where nobody has even tried to prove it. This idea about not taxing ultra-productive individuals is actually compatible with the Marxian conception of socialism. 'to each according to his contribution', so for a Marxist there's nothing problematic with Nozicks argument. Marxism is an ideology for people who want to build things and want the whole thing they build, not an ideology for egalitarian-- the text presents this as something which leads people not to be Marxists, and that's probably true in academia-- after all, social scientists aren't usually building things that they want to enjoy in their entirety and of which they want the whole thing, so of course they're not going to be Marxists, but they aren't really the people it's made for either.