“There is no more justification for using the state apparatus to compel some citizens to pay for unwanted benefits that others desire than there is to force them to reimburse others for their private expenses.”
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, p. 250 (rev. ed.)
Ah the exchange branch. Didn’t Rawls change his mind later about arts funding in Political Liberalism?
Also, at the beginning of the same paragraph where Will takes that quote, Rawls clearly says that the above quoted statement applies only if we assume “the justice of the exisiting distribution of income and wealth, and of current definition of the rights of property.” Quoting Rawls in isolation runs of risk of making it seem like Rawls endorsing a wide range for what he says. I suspect Will would not endorse Rawls’ preconditions. If Will does not agree with Rawls’ thrust (or does not indicate what his thrust is), what is the point of quoting him?
P.S. Who quotes from the revised edition? I mean, really. Only the uncool kids.
He didn’t really mean it and you don’t really approve because that way lies anarchy.
There is no public sphere of activity at all without such compulsion.
Ah the exchange branch. Didn’t Rawls change his mind later about arts funding in Political Liberalism?
Also, at the beginning of the same paragraph where Will takes that quote, Rawls clearly says that the above quoted statement applies only if we assume “the justice of the exisiting distribution of income and wealth, and of current definition of the rights of property.” Quoting Rawls in isolation runs of risk of making it seem like Rawls endorsing a wide range for what he says. I suspect Will would not endorse Rawls’ preconditions. If Will does not agree with Rawls’ thrust (or does not indicate what his thrust is), what is the point of quoting him?
P.S. Who quotes from the revised edition? I mean, really. Only the uncool kids.
He didn’t really mean it and you don’t really approve because that way lies anarchy.
There is no public sphere of activity at all without such compulsion.