John Rawls, in his seminal work 'A Theory of Justice' (1971), sought to establish principles of justice for a well-ordered society, leading to his concept of 'democratic equality.' His argument begins with a thought experiment: the 'original position' behind a 'veil of ignorance.' In this hypothetical scenario, rational individuals choose principles of justice for their society without knowing their own social status, talents, beliefs, or even their gender or race. This ensures impartiality and fairness in the selection of principles.

From this original position, Rawls argues that individuals would choose two principles of justice:

1. The First Principle (Equal Basic Liberties): Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. These liberties include political liberty (right to vote, hold office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and thought, freedom of the person, and the right to hold personal property. This principle has lexical priority, meaning it must be satisfied before the second principle can be applied.

2. The Second Principle (Social and Economic Inequalities): Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

   • (a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the Difference Principle).
   • (b) Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Rawls's concept of 'democratic equality' arises from the combination of fair equality of opportunity and the Difference Principle. It goes beyond mere formal equality (equal rights) or liberal equality (formal equality plus meritocracy), aiming to mitigate the effects of social and natural contingencies. It allows for inequalities only if they ultimately benefit the worst-off members of society, ensuring that natural talents and social circumstances do not unfairly determine life prospects.

Critical Examination:

While Rawls's theory is a monumental contribution, it has faced significant critiques:

1. Communitarian Critique (e.g., Michael Sandel): Communitarians argue that Rawls's 'unencumbered self' in the original position is an abstract individual, detached from community, history, and moral traditions. They contend that identity and values are deeply shaped by communal ties, which Rawls's theory overlooks, leading to an impoverished understanding of justice.

2. Libertarian Critique (e.g., Robert Nozick): Libertarians, particularly Nozick, argue that Rawls's Difference Principle, which necessitates state intervention and redistribution, infringes upon individual property rights and liberty. Nozick advocates for an 'entitlement theory' of justice, where holdings are just if acquired justly, regardless of the resulting distribution.

3. Feminist Critique: Feminist scholars point out that Rawls largely ignores gender and the family as a site of injustice. His original theory implicitly assumes a 'head of household' model, overlooking intra-family inequalities, the gendered division of labor, and the specific forms of oppression women face. Critics like Susan Okin argued that a truly just society must address justice within the family.

4. Marxist Critique: Marxists argue that Rawls's framework operates within a capitalist system, seeking to make it more just rather than questioning its fundamental structures. They contend that Rawls's principles do not address the root causes of exploitation and class inequality inherent in capitalism.

5. Practicality and Scope: The 'veil of ignorance' is a powerful thought experiment, but its practical application in real-world policy-making is challenging. Furthermore, Rawls primarily focuses on a closed, self-sufficient society, limiting the direct applicability of his principles to issues of global justice.

In conclusion, Rawls's argument for democratic equality provides a robust and influential framework for thinking about justice in a liberal society, emphasizing fairness and the well-being of the least advantaged. However, its foundational assumptions, implications for liberty, and neglect of certain forms of injustice have been subjects of extensive and ongoing philosophical debate.