A Statement Of Justice

Would you like to see a fine example of why I consider philosophy, as it is currently and with rare exceptions practiced, to be a sensational farce not worth serious attention? Here. Try this:

"Why the boundaries of political philosophy seem to map the boundaries of communities, and not more (the whole world) or less (the individual person or the family) is unclear and Rawls himself does not provide any grounds for the moral relevance of bounded communities."

Let me help: do you see that "unclear" gag? What the writer is trying to say, but can't quite get it out, is that John Rawls had written himself into a corner where he was standing knee-deep in horseshit.

I say that Rawls is summarily dismissed precisely because of his "egalitarian ideal of justice as fairness, developed within the medium of analytical political philosophy, in a manner that is detached from history and economics", which contention (mine) is exactly opposite that of the person who wrote this, under the name of The Ludwig von Mises Institute, no less.

There was nothing "formidable" about him, least of all to anything like "the theories proposed by classical liberals and libertarians".

Build More V-8's

Wouldn't this just wreck the greenies' whole day?

Gas it on, kids. That's what I always say.