I think that it should reflect how humans actually are and harness that into the human ideal.

I make the judgement that the chief human good is making a positive contribution to society, that is my view of morality. It is sort of a Utilitarian ideal. It is important to note that I don't think this is how humans should actually be motivated, I just think this is what society should encourage. I can't give an very strong justifications for this view of morality, this is simply my intuition.

I think humans actually are actually motivated by the hope that they will provide a better life for themselves and their loved ones, the only way this can be measured by society is materially. I don't think this is nearly as controversial as my first judgement.

So my conclusion is that society should be ordered in a way that correlates the personal benefits someone has with their contribution to society. This is basically my belief in the difference principle.

I think a paternalist state is needed, insofar as required by the difference principle and equality of opportunity. In the absence of a state that in some way measures how much people earn, and therefore how they are incentivized. People are incentivized by the other powers-that-be. Minimalist states create a power vacuum, and this vacuum will necessarily, pick a distribution that will encourages less aggregate material benefits than a state that encourages the contribution to society as a rule. The goal of a state should be to maximize the happiness of its citizens, this is best done under a liberal system because people are the arbiters of their own happiness, and all a state can do is evaluate the distribution of materials that can be loosely transferred into happiness.