Basics on Social Democracy “Opponents of state support might argue that if the state supports children from poor families in order to give them equal opportunities to a good education, this would be unequal distribution of state property.“ equality and solidarity'(liberté, egalité et fraternité), justice has been added to the core values of social democracy. Whether it is a distinct fourth value, a replacement, or an extension of the term'equality' is debatable. Nevertheless, it has become standard to speak'freedom, justice and solidarity' as the core values of social democracy. The call for equality during the French Revolution was an insurgency against the hierarchically conceived society, which was divided into different estates of the realm. The revolutionists demanded equal rights under the law, such as fair litigations or voting rights. They demanded that social origin, along with religion and race, should no longer be grounds for unequal treatment. Even though nowadays most democratic states have articles in their basic laws which state something alike to“All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights”, and though most states have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which implies equality under the law, reality often looks different. Discrimination against, for example, religion or race remains a worldwide problem, and therefore the call for equality under the law has not lost significance. Apart from equality under the law,'equality of opportunity' is an important demand of social democrats. It includes, for example, the access to jobs and health care, and most importantly the right to education. These rights should be independent of gender, origin, sexual orientation, religion, health, and economic status. Underprivileged members of the society, such as poor or disabled, must receive governmental support in order to give everyone a chance to participate under all circumstances in society. Opponents of state support might argue that if the state supports children from poor families in order to give them equal opportunities to a good education, this would be unequal distribution of state property. Should not everybody get the same amount of support to preserve equality? Here, the social democratic interpretation of'justice' becomes important for the debate. Undoubtedly, one could argue that a completely equal distribution of state funds is just. But automatically most people would answer:“No, it's unfair, unjust, if a millionaire receives the same governmental support as a beggar.” The concept of justice is subject to numerous qualifications. What is just is interpreted differently by every political ideology and has to be established by societal negotiations. The philosopher John Rawls(1921-2002) asks his readers to imagine being a member of a group of persons who neither know their own skills nor their wealth. This group is asked to devise and negotiate a form of societal organization and formulate basic principles for a new society. None of them knows what position he/she will occupy in this fictive society – it is possible to become a beggar or a millionaire. Under these conditions, Rawls argues, the persons would choose a fairly equal society; one that protects the worst off, as everyone is afraid to have bad luck. He claims that the group would adopt two principles which would organize the distribution of social advantages and the allocation of rights and duties. The result of the groups' agreements would be the framework for a just 10