Defining justice in politics

The distinction John Rawls makes leaving gender, race, and wealth out of ones decisions regarding justice in politics, is an abstract idea or principle rather than an affirmation of real human nature and the real living object. That is, with Rawls and other philosophers, human nature is not really involved in defining political justice. Marxism did this too, rejecting human nature and making the idea that human beings are infinitely malleable the fictional feature of political philosophy. In other words, to these people there is no human nature. Postmodernism goes in this rootless direction too seeing values as infinitely malleable and relative.

What does politics look like when it includes real human nature? Unlike other political structures, traditional “ethnopluralism” adheres to the variety of people and to real human nature which remains  kin-centered, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection---the origin of real altruism---as the primary unit of selection; and it discourages marauding imperialism. Political justice related to human nature calls for some sort of federalism not fascism, but with an economic nationalism that protects the independence of the regions and states, which would largely contain ethnic cultures or ethnostates. This could be conservatively adapted to the U. S. Constitution with its separation of powers and states. That creates whatever peace is possible between humans. That defines political justice.