“Once a person exists, not everything compatible with his overall existence being a net plus can be done, even by those who created him. An existing person has claims, even against those whose purpose in creating him was to violate those claims.”

“If D1 was a just distribution, and people voluntarily moved from it to D2, transferring parts of their shares they were given under D1 (what was it for if not to do something with?), isn't D2 also just? If the people were entitled to dispose of the resources to which they were entitled (under D1), didn't this include their being entitled to give it to, or exchange it with, Wilt Chamberlain? Can anyone else complain on grounds of justice? Each other person already has his legitimate share under D1. Under D1, there is nothing that anyone has that anyone else has a claim of justice against. After someone transfers something to Wilt Chamberlain, third parties still have their legitimate shares; their shares are not changed. By what process could such a transfer among two persons give rise to a legitimate claim of distributive justice on a portion of what was transferred, by a third party who had no claim of justice on any holding of the others before the transfer?”

“With some justice, I think, I could claim that it is all right as a beginning to leave a principle in a somewhat fuzzy state; the primary question is whether something like it will do. This claim, however, would meet a frosty reception from those many proponents of another principle scrutinized in the next chapter, if they knew how much harder I shall be on their principle than I am here on mine. Fortunately, they don't know that yet.”

“And although it might be best of all to be Socrates satisfied, having both happiness and depth, we would give up some happiness in order to gain the depth.”

“The mind creates those things that exist.”

“By the very notion that God does not exist an atheist embodies the idea of a supreme being by pondering the very existence he wishes to refute. How can you refute something you don't believe in? Just arguing against the nature of something implies it has attributes, which then must be recognized because only something that exists has these characteristic traits. Even if the idea of no God exists in the non-believers mind, his thoughts make him more insidious than those proffesing to believe because the idea of a God is now planted in his mind and he spends all his time dwelling on the nature of something that doesn't exist, giving creation to the very thing he opposes, he has constructed his own God and it haunts him because it is with him daily as a nagging and bitter irony, that his very own mind has created, god who shall dwell within him embittering and confounding him in perpetuity.”

“She found herself missing him - this person who didn't even exist.”