No, Deacon, you’re not. I

No, Deacon, you’re not. I read Rawls’ Theory of Justice many years ago, but as I recall his theoretical construct, it was infinitely malleable. The conclusions he deduced from it depended entirely on his empirical assumptions. When he wrote his book, circa 1970, one could argue–as he did–that socialism or a liberal welfare state offered the best prospects for at least some members of any society. Thirty years of experience have dispelled that illusion. We know now that liberalism allows the rogues among us–Bill Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, whoever–to prosper, but its consequences for the most vulnerable are catastrophic. See our posts below about the eleven-year-old Minneapolis girl killed in the crossfire of rival gangs.

Responses