Julian Lamont’s entry on “Distributive Justice” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy briefly summarizes six different principles on how best to distribute goods and services including the main critiques of each principle. Strict Egalitarianism states that all goods and services should be distributed equally to all people, no matter what. The main critique on Strict Egalitarianism is that people’s material goods do not have to be strictly equal in order for people to be better off. The Difference Principle states that wealth does not have to distributed equally as long as the least advantaged have a larger benefit. The Difference Principle focuses on the relative position of different groups rather than exact equality. This principle is heavily criticized. Resource-Based Principles grew out of the Difference Principle but seeks to distribute goods based on people’s choices and talents. Welfare-Based Principles seek to increase welfare of the people with a focus on the Utilitarian line of thought. It is almost impossible to determine a person’s welfare quantitatively, making it almost impossible for proponents to agree on how to apply this principle. Desert-Based Principles examines people’s contributions, efforts, and/or compensations to determine how to distribute goods and services. A criticism is that economic distribution is based on factors out of an individuals control. Libertarian Principles look at the market as being just in and of itself based on the exchanges made. Implementing these principles is nigh impossible so they exist more as gedankenexperiment rather than viable alternatives to goods distribution. Not that any of them seem to really address the current unequal distribution to goods and services.