[beckett]

I participated in the thread on Rawls you mention, and, like you, I was similarly dismayed at the attempt by one of his former students to paint him as being friendly in some respects to conservative thought. That poster had a penchant for avoiding clear demonstrative sentences, a knack she may have picked up from "professional academic philosophers" like Rawls.

In brief, I consider Rawls's "veil of ignorance" a sham, an impossible, guilt-tripping sham that cannot be constructed in real minds. It only works as an abstract instrument in the hands of Blank Slaters, which is why I was so disappointed to see Prof. Pinker grovel before a PC altar by referring to it favorably.

Your kids must've been very happy to get so learned an essay about Rawls. If the analyses in it are any indication, you are more than capable of digesting Rawls's cabalistic mental peregrinations. The only question is, why would you want to? ;-)

[John Locke]

Like most self-described liberals, Rawls was a hypocrit and a fraud. Here's why.

Behind your "veil of ignorance" you have to choose between two societies. In one, you will be a free man. In the other, you have a 40% chance of being immediately put to death.

So, if Rawls actually believed his own crap, why was he a lifelong supporter of abortion?