I dunno whether I read Rawls right, but Rawls seems more radical than Marx. For Marx, the worker deserves the full value of the work they are producing, does not deserve one cent more, does not have a valid claim to anything else. It is libertarian self-ownership with a particular twist.
Rawls's model presupposes communism instead of arriving to it. It presupposes that the entire wealth of society is held in common, and thus we might choose any particular distribution of it. It has no account of individual property rights. It also has no account of people actually deserving something or not.
I agreed with the thesis of the book — that liberalism offers an attractive way of life, but I found the book marred by its academic framing.
And the second paragraph of the book felt the need to repeat itself within a couple of sentences.
"I am not a religious man, and even so I still wasn’t prepared for what greeted us. The beach and surrounding area were packed with thousands and thousands of partyers. It was beer, bikinis, Santa hats, and tattooed flesh as far as the eye could see. As I said, I’m not religious, nor I should add prudish, but …"
“political liberalism has been criticized for making liberalism a political doctrine detached from considerations about how to live”
I have no clue how this can be a critique of liberalism. Government action should be divorced from the contents of a good life, and should only strive to make private citizens pursue the good life on their own with as much freedom as possible. A political theory without a theory of the good life is universalizable and is compatible with all reasonable conceptions of the good life. I tune out when this argument is made, since when challenged, it tends to go into the romantic/spiritual direction.
I dunno whether I read Rawls right, but Rawls seems more radical than Marx. For Marx, the worker deserves the full value of the work they are producing, does not deserve one cent more, does not have a valid claim to anything else. It is libertarian self-ownership with a particular twist.
Rawls's model presupposes communism instead of arriving to it. It presupposes that the entire wealth of society is held in common, and thus we might choose any particular distribution of it. It has no account of individual property rights. It also has no account of people actually deserving something or not.
I agreed with the thesis of the book — that liberalism offers an attractive way of life, but I found the book marred by its academic framing.
And the second paragraph of the book felt the need to repeat itself within a couple of sentences.
"I am not a religious man, and even so I still wasn’t prepared for what greeted us. The beach and surrounding area were packed with thousands and thousands of partyers. It was beer, bikinis, Santa hats, and tattooed flesh as far as the eye could see. As I said, I’m not religious, nor I should add prudish, but …"
>that society is a fair system of cooperation
Wait, what? Isn't the whole point of Rawlsian liberalism that the current system is not fair, because not equal, and redistribution is needed?
"This is probably less contentious and more urgent than searching for an elusive liberal way of life that permeates all aspects of our lives."
Yes, this. Down with liberalism.
“political liberalism has been criticized for making liberalism a political doctrine detached from considerations about how to live”
I have no clue how this can be a critique of liberalism. Government action should be divorced from the contents of a good life, and should only strive to make private citizens pursue the good life on their own with as much freedom as possible. A political theory without a theory of the good life is universalizable and is compatible with all reasonable conceptions of the good life. I tune out when this argument is made, since when challenged, it tends to go into the romantic/spiritual direction.