Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (7999)	5/12/1999 10:14:00 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

I prefer the nomer classical liberal, it keeps one disassociated from "conservatives" like Buchanan. How the Republican party can stand to keep a xenophobic, protectionist, populist rabble rouser like him on board I dont know. But there are worse in that party these days... Rawls is an astute philosopher, though he has a tendency to be wishy washy on his foundations. He likes to abuse Kant by taking him out of context, as he did widely in Theory of Justice. Which, by the way is a complete mess, Im sure you read it. You are right, his popular reputation came from that book, and I dont know why it was so widely acclaimed. It was meant as a justification of the welfare state, but in practical application would become a justification for tyranny. I think part of its popularity was the fact it was the first systematic politico-ethico work to breach the Analytic tradition which had dominated for decades. His polemics against Utilitarianism are well known, and well-grounded. He argued for instance that teleologic ethical theories like Utilitarianism could never stand because they fail to respect the person, they use them as mere means.