quite apart from general difficulties of derivation, that assumes that we already know what socioeconomic rights are justified; it assumes we have already chosen between, say, the conditional formulations in UDHR Article 25(1)79 and the unconditional formulation from ICESCR just quoted. One is entitled to ask, How can we know that without having considered what is to be said in favor of a theory of justice of the Dworkinian kind as against a theory of justice of the Rawlsian or neoRawlsian kind? We cannot just "intuit" it because, as we saw in Part II, our intuitions on this are all over place. There is no substitute for doing the hard work that theorizing about justice requires, and that involves thinking through what might actually justify taking sides in the RawlsDworkin dispute. VII. SECOND-BEST THEORY In actual fact, no one has been assigned an initially equal share of resources, nor have most people had an opportunity to insure themselves in a fair market against lack of talent, disability, or various forms of bad luck. They are stuck in the real world, cursed with a heritage of what almost anyone would have to describe as injustice, and that is the world in which they suffer unemployment, deprivation, and insecurity, in which their children go hungry, and in which they have to make whatever appalling choices are left open to them. Rawls's theory is similarly unrealistic. None of us was put in an original position and asked what principles we would choose to put up with or what principles we would be able to put up with to govern the basic structure of our society. To the extent it is governed by principles at all, the basic structure of our society is governed by principles manifestly rigged to the advantage of some and the detriment of others. Or even when it is governed by fair principles, we play the game that those principles define-such as the market game-with radically disparate initial endowments of property and other resources. Even Nozick acknowledges the prominence of injustice in the real world. No one thinks that current holdings of property are respectable by the historical standards that he articulates. The pedigrees of all our holdings are contaminated with the cruelest injustice, and when wealthy individuals are being required to support the meager lifestyle of people much less fortunate than them, it is quite unclear whether they are being required to do so out of 79. G.A. Res. 217 (IlI) A, supra note 1, at 76 ("Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstancesbeyond his control." (emphasis added)). 800