Social contract theory, much like Rule Utilitarianism, is a moral philosophy that claims morality should be based on rules for a good society, which all people should follow. If anyone were to accept this idea, the key point of discussion would be over which rules would make a good society. In an attempt to come up with fair rules, John Rawls invented what he called the Veil of Ignorance behind which he created three such rules. The Veil of Ignorance is basically a method by which rules are created and agreed upon with no knowledge of what one's own conditions or characteristics are to be when the rules are to be put into effect. Essentially it means to create rules that do not give any group special treatment, since one would not know which group they would find themselves in when the rules were to be implemented. It is behind this Veil that Rawls developed three rules of fairness, with each one can find a core political philosophy. Each rule attacks Capitalism in it's own way, with the third putting the final nail in the proverbial coffin. Although the final rule is the most damning for Capitalism, the first two also provide important criticisms of the current global capitalist system.

The first rule states that everyone will have the greatest freedom that can be distributed equally to all. This rule identifies most strongly with Liberalism, which is primarily concerned with the freedoms of the individual. Certainly most people would have no problem with that, and many would not see a conflict with Capitalism here, but there is one nonetheless. The problem with Capitalism illustrated by this rule can be found in the latter half of the rule, which claims that the freedoms must be distributed equally to all. As has been proven in countless examples over time, Capitalism does an incredibly poor job of allocating things equally, and despite its rhetoric this includes freedom. If one does not have money, they have very little freedom. They cannot move about the world freely as they cannot afford the transportation cost, they cannot disseminate their ideas among a large audience, and most importantly they do not have a large degree of power over their own lives. Capitalism limits and unfairly distributes the freedom of almost all people within its influence. Even the successful are often constricted by Capitalism, as they are forced into their vocations not by their own interests or talents but by market forces.

There is only one freedom that Capitalism is in a uniquely qualified position to provide, and that has been called the freedom to starve, which would of course eliminate all freedoms by imposing death. Even this horrible freedom which no one would want is not a freedom, it is imposed upon people because they do no wish to starve, but if they do not work, do not capitulate, do not follow market forces, they may be unable to provide for themselves. Those not 'economically viable' such as the poor, the elderly, and the handicapped do not factor into Capitalism's version of 'fair' and when they do, they poses a considerably lower value than others. Perhaps this should be called the freedom to fail, which in itself is not so bad, but the consequences of failing in a capitalist society can be death. Some do not even get the opportunity to make a fair attempt because of economic inequality, which the second of Rawls' rules deals with.

The second rule asserts that everyone will have equal fair opportunity. On the surface this rule would appear to support the free market, but upon closer inspection it provides just as useful a critique of Capitalism as the first rule. Many supporters of Capitalism claim that it gives people with a good work ethic, a useful or appreciated talent, or a unique idea the opportunity to share it with the world and be rewarded for it. This however is not true for most of the world's population. Even if this statement were true, the opportunity would neither be equal nor fair. Some people born into rich families would have more freedom to pursue their interests and more money to invest therein. People in positions of power can trample others not the basis of the strength of their ideas or commitment, but by the sheer fact that they have the power to do so. This rule in an attempt to provide a truly equal and fair opportunity for all would no doubt support free education, universal health care, and economic equity, which Capitalism does not support. This rule is so effective because it takes a common defense of capitalism and uses it to show more or less conclusively that in today's world, the continuation of Capitalism is immoral.

The third and final rule maintains that there will be no inequalities in distribution that do not benefit the least advantaged. It is this rule that the continuation of Capitalism is condemned completely and it suggests a much more socialist, one might even go so far as to say Marxist, view of the world. One of the core tenets of Socialism purports from each according to their abilities, from each according to their needs, thus illustrating that socialists believe distribution should be based on the least advantaged, those with the most needs. This not only provides no conflict between Rawls' rules and Socialism, but it also rules out the continuation of Capitalism. Due to price support programs during in the United States there was enough grain in storage to make seven loaves of bread for every man woman and child on earth, so there is certainly enough to go around. However, the least advantaged are still starving under the capitalist system. Perhaps one day it had been true that the inequalities of Capitalism provided and efficient means of organization, motivation, and modernization that did improve the conditions of the least advantaged, but even if it were so, that time has long since passed.

This rule is very precise in its wording because it understands that Capitalism does have its time, place, and role to play in social evolution. Karl Marx, generally seen as the founder of Communism, himself saw Capitalism despite all of its apparent evils as a necessary stage of socioeconomic development. Capitalism does have its benefits or else it would not have been the dominant trend with so many supporters for so many years. Without Capitalism's drive to produce, constantly grow, and innovate, the world never would have been able to reach the level of development that it has. It is that level of development that now makes it possible to feed every person on the planet, but it is not being done. Capitalism has ceased to benefit the least advantaged, if indeed it ever did. In fact, the least advantaged are constantly being pushed further down in terms of quality of life by the best capitalists. So far the only movements to improve their conditions have been largely socialist if not in name but in ideals. Capitalism may have once been morally acceptable according to Rawls' rules, but it no longer is and shall never be again.

This analysis of Rawls' rules in terms of Capitalism definitely supports Rawls' version of Contractarianism in the sense that it can create very dynamic rules, providing useful criticisms of things many people find morally wrong, yet versatile enough to allow for certain useful evils. These rules condemn the evils of Capitalism while still allowing it to fulfill its essential role in the development of society, technology, and the ability to produce. Rawls' three rules of fairness as applied to Capitalism, while supporting his thesis, does not necessarily prove it as an acceptable moral theory, it simply shows its strengths when applied to a certain situation, although there are no particularly memorable arguments against it. However, there are arguments against Rawls' Veil of Ignorance and his version of Contractarianism, even against Contractarianism itself, but there does not appear to be a persuasive argument against his three rules of fairness. These three rules are more or less indisputable and if they were to be accepted and followed by those in power, or even just the general populace, the world would be a far better place than it is today. Whether these rules are to be brought about by evolution or revolution, they would result in a swift and vast improvement in the quality of life for most people of the world, not to mention the fact that it would create a much more equitable and morally acceptable global system. Rawls' rules have shown that Capitalism's time is up, and it is now time to replace it with a more moral system.