How much of a genius is Rawls? A dialogue, referring to my no-nagging model


Author. Doctor Terence Rajivan Edward
Abstract. This paper presents my view that Rawls is no better than myself, with my no-nagging model. Someone is nagging you at work, to do this better and that better. What do you do? Assume they want to get rid of you by nagging. Then do little, make a mess probably, and risk getting fired. Saves labour. Assume they want you to stay. Then do little, make a mess, and they won't know where to start with nagging you on this and will learn to give you your freedom. So nagging never succeeds amongst self-interested individuals. But no nagging will lead to problems concerning the details of the work: the trainee surgeon does not do his surgery properly or the lawyer or the builder. Within a dialogue, I present various objections to my claim that this is as good as Rawls's rational actor models.
Draft version: version 2 (29th June 2026; v1 8th February 2026, abstract edited, "thenceforth" removed)


ME: Hi. People say Rawls is good with his rational actor model.
STRANGER: What model?
ME: There is cake which has to be cut into pieces. Everyone wants as much as possible. How do you get a fair division of the cake? Do you need a person of noble character to cut the cake? No. Assume they are all selfish and ignore the interests of others. You ask one of these people to cut it but tell them they can only take the last piece. He or she is worried about being left with a smaller piece, so they cut the cake equally.
STRANGER: Interesting. Do you have a model?
ME: I have a few. Here is one It is called the nagging model. Someone is nagging you at work, to do this better and that better. What do you do? Assume they want to get rid of you by nagging. Then do little, make a mess probably, and risk getting fired. Saves labour. Assume they want you to stay. Then do little, make a mess, and they won't know where to start with nagging you on this and will thenceforth learn to give you your freedom. So nagging never succeeds amongst self-interested individuals.But no nagging will lead to problems concerning the details of the work: the trainee surgeon does not do his surgery properly or the lawyer or the builder.
YAWNYAWN: I stopped listening, sorry.


CATO: Someone will do the nagging, from fear of breakdown.
TRADITIONPOOT: Your model may be more universal than Rawls's. We cannot assume his model will be intelligible in some cakeless societies. But in our tradition, you try to derive good consequences from the actions of selfish, self-interested individuals. Like Adam Smith's the invisible hand: everyone follows their self-interest and still the society's needs are met. Your model is not our tradition: bad consequences from the actions of selfish, self-interested individuals. And we cannot be expected to do anything but reject it therefore.
METAPHOROOT: Rawls's one is like a metaphor. There are grander things than cake to which the same lesson applies. What about yours?
POVERTYLESS: If the society falls below a certain level, by means of failure at the details, then your model becomes important. But our societies don't. So Rawls is what's relevant for us.
POLITICALTHEORY: This is not really political theory, your model. It is I-don't-know-what. Labour economics? Political theory is about fairness, about justice.
HISTORYSUSPECT: Is your model not known already? Maybe in some private discussion club. Rawls is new!
ME: It is strange. After Adam Smith, surely many would have made rational actor models, in an informal sense. Where are all of them? Anyway, without actual historical information, there is no reason to think model-makers focused on nagging over fairness.
ECONPHD: You need to formalize your model or you maybe need many more to compete with a high-up math whiz economist. I don't know about that other road really: sailing East to find the West. I never came up with anything really myself.
DELETION: If you reach the level of Rawls, it only means both of you will be deleted or marginalized. It won't be that you will occupy the central place he currently does, okay.
HARVARDO: Harvard supports us. You can't play that role.
DOGO: Get out of here 0161__Rajivan. These people are basically violent people, having to use words instead of fists.
MICHAELRUSH (seemingly sad): Am I only here because I know you, Terence?




References
Edward, Terence Rajivan. 2026. Nagging and rational strategy and problems with details: Rawlsians, psychiatrists, builders. Available at academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/164438743/Nagging_and_rational_strategy_and_problems_with_details_Rawlsians_psychiatrists_builders
(I should share a list of my models.)
Rawls, John. 1999 (revised edition, originally 1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: the Belknap Press.
(Someone surely has quite a precise understanding of what is beyond the level of an urchin interested in competing.)
Smith, Adam. 1904 (originally 1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: Methuen. Available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html