classes ::: John_Rawls, book,
children :::
branches :::
see also :::

Instances - Classes - See Also - Object in Names
Definitions - Quotes - Chapters


object:A Theory of Justice
class:John Rawls
class:book


questions, comments, suggestions/feedback, take-down requests, contribute, etc
contact me @ integralyogin@gmail.com or via the comments below
or join the integral discord server (chatrooms)
if the page you visited was empty, it may be noted and I will try to fill it out. cheers



--- OBJECT INSTANCES [0]

TOPICS


AUTH


BOOKS


CHAPTERS

--- PRIMARY CLASS


book
John_Rawls

--- SEE ALSO


--- SIMILAR TITLES [0]


A Theory of Justice
select ::: Being, God, injunctions, media, place, powers, subjects,
favorite ::: cwsa, everyday, grade, mcw, memcards (table), project, project 0001, Savitri, the Temple of Sages, three js, whiteboard,
temp ::: consecration, experiments, knowledge, meditation, psychometrics, remember, responsibility, temp, the Bad, the God object, the Good, the most important, the Ring, the source of inspirations, the Stack, the Tarot, the Word, top priority, whiteboard,

--- DICTIONARIES (in Dictionaries, in Quotes, in Chapters)



--- QUOTES [1 / 1 - 7 / 7] (in Dictionaries, in Quotes, in Chapters)



KEYS (10k)

   1 Tom Butler-Bowdon

NEW FULL DB (2.4M)

   2 Murray N Rothbard


1:reading ::: 50 Philosophy Classics: List of Books Covered: 1. Hannah Arendt - The Human Condition (1958) 2. Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics (4th century BC) 3. AJ Ayer - Language, Truth and Logic (1936) 4. Julian Baggini - The Ego Trick (2011) 5. Jean Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulation (1981) 6. Simone de Beauvoir - The Second Sex (1952) 7. Jeremy Bentham - Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) 8. Henri Bergson - Creative Evolution (1911) 9. David Bohm - Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980) 10. Noam Chomsky - Understanding Power (2002) 11. Cicero - On Duties (44 BC) 12. Confucius - Analects (5th century BC) 13. Rene Descartes - Meditations (1641) 14. Ralph Waldo Emerson - Fate (1860) 15. Epicurus - Letters (3rd century BC) 16. Michel Foucault - The Order of Things (1966) 17. Harry Frankfurt - On Bullshit (2005) 18. Sam Harris - Free Will (2012) 19. GWF Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit (1803) 20. Martin Heidegger - Being and Time (1927) 21. Heraclitus - Fragments (6th century) 22. David Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) 23. William James - Pragmatism (1904) 24. Daniel Kahneman - Thinking: Fast and Slow (2011) 25. Immanuel Kant - Critique of Pure Reason (1781) 26. Soren Kierkegaard - Fear and Trembling (1843) 27. Saul Kripke - Naming and Necessity (1972) 28. Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) 29. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - Theodicy (1710) 30. John Locke - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) 31. Marshall McLuhan - The Medium is the Massage (1967) 32. Niccolo Machiavelli - The Prince (1532) 33. John Stuart Mill - On Liberty (1859) 34. Michel de Montaigne - Essays (1580) 35. Iris Murdoch - The Sovereignty of Good (1970) 36. Friedrich Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil (1886) 37. Blaise Pascal - Pensees (1670) 38. Plato - The Republic (4th century BC) 39. Karl Popper - The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934) 40. John Rawls - A Theory of Justice (1971) 41. Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract (1762) 42. Bertrand Russell - The Conquest of Happiness (1920) 43. Michael Sandel - Justice (2009) 44. Jean Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness (1943) 45. Arthur Schopenhauer - The World as Will and Representation (1818) 46. Peter Singer - The Life You Can Save (2009) 47. Baruch Spinoza - Ethics (1677) 48. Nassim Nicholas - Taleb The Black Swan (2007) 49. Ludwig Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigations (1953) 50. Slavoj Zizek - Living In The End Times (2010) ~ Tom Butler-Bowdon, 50 Philosophy Classics ,

*** NEWFULLDB 2.4M ***

1:If a theory of justice is to guide reasoned choice of policies, strategies or institutions, then the identification of fully just social arrangements is neither necessary nor sufficient. ~ Amartya Sen
2:When John Rawls, in his A Theory of Justice repeatedly referred to outcomes that 'society' can 'arrange,' these euphemisms finessed aside the plain fact that only government has the power to override millions of people's mutually agreed transactions terms. Interior decorators arrange. Governments compel. It is not a subtle distinctions. ~ Thomas Sowell
3:Why does everyone take for granted that we don't learn to grow arms, but rather, are designed to grow arms? Similarly, we should conclude that in the case of the development of moral systems; there's a biological endowment which in effect requires us to develop a system of moral judgment and a theory of justice, if you like, that in fact has detailed applicability over an enormous range. ~ Noam Chomsky
4:David Brooks, “Our Founding Yuppie,” Weekly Standard, Oct. 23, 2000, 31. The word “meritocracy” is an argument-starter, and I have employed it sparingly in this book. It is often used loosely to denote a vision of social mobility based on merit and diligence, like Franklin’s. The word was coined by British social thinker Michael Young (later to become, somewhat ironically, Lord Young of Darlington) in his 1958 book The Rise of the Meritocracy (New York: Viking Press) as a dismissive term to satirize a society that misguidedly created a new elite class based on the “narrow band of values” of IQ and educational credentials. The Harvard philosopher John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), 106, used it more broadly to mean a “social order [that] follows the principle of careers open to talents.” The best description of the idea is in Nicholas Lemann’s The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1999), a history of educational aptitude tests and their effect on American society. In Franklin’s time, Enlightenment thinkers (such as Jefferson in his proposals for creating the University of Virginia) advocated replacing the hereditary aristocracy with a “natural aristocracy,” whose members would be plucked from the masses at an early age based on “virtues and talents” and groomed for leadership. Franklin’s idea was more expansive. He believed in encouraging and providing opportunities for all people to succeed as best they could based on their diligence, hard work, virtue, and talent. As we shall see, his proposals for what became the University of Pennsylvania (in contrast to Jefferson’s for the University of Virginia) were aimed not at filtering a new elite but at encouraging and enriching all “aspiring” young men. Franklin was propounding a more egalitarian and democratic approach than Jefferson by proposing a system that would, as Rawls (p. 107) would later prescribe, assure that “resources for education are not to be allotted solely or necessarily mainly according to their return as estimated in productive trained abilities, but also according to their worth in enriching the personal and social life of citizens.” (Translation: He cared not simply about making society as a whole more productive, but also about making each individual more enriched.) ~ Walter Isaacson
5:reading :::
   50 Philosophy Classics: List of Books Covered:
   1. Hannah Arendt - The Human Condition (1958)
   2. Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics (4th century BC)
   3. AJ Ayer - Language, Truth and Logic (1936)
   4. Julian Baggini - The Ego Trick (2011)
   5. Jean Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulation (1981)
   6. Simone de Beauvoir - The Second Sex (1952)
   7. Jeremy Bentham - Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)
   8. Henri Bergson - Creative Evolution (1911)
   9. David Bohm - Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980)
   10. Noam Chomsky - Understanding Power (2002)
   11. Cicero - On Duties (44 BC)
   12. Confucius - Analects (5th century BC)
   13. Rene Descartes - Meditations (1641)
   14. Ralph Waldo Emerson - Fate (1860)
   15. Epicurus - Letters (3rd century BC)
   16. Michel Foucault - The Order of Things (1966)
   17. Harry Frankfurt - On Bullshit (2005)
   18. Sam Harris - Free Will (2012)
   19. GWF Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit (1803)
   20. Martin Heidegger - Being and Time (1927)
   21. Heraclitus - Fragments (6th century)
   22. David Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748)
   23. William James - Pragmatism (1904)
   24. Daniel Kahneman - Thinking: Fast and Slow (2011)
   25. Immanuel Kant - Critique of Pure Reason (1781)
   26. Soren Kierkegaard - Fear and Trembling (1843)
   27. Saul Kripke - Naming and Necessity (1972)
   28. Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
   29. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - Theodicy (1710)
   30. John Locke - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)
   31. Marshall McLuhan - The Medium is the Massage (1967)
   32. Niccolo Machiavelli - The Prince (1532)
   33. John Stuart Mill - On Liberty (1859)
   34. Michel de Montaigne - Essays (1580)
   35. Iris Murdoch - The Sovereignty of Good (1970)
   36. Friedrich Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil (1886)
   37. Blaise Pascal - Pensees (1670)
   38. Plato - The Republic (4th century BC)
   39. Karl Popper - The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934)
   40. John Rawls - A Theory of Justice (1971)
   41. Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract (1762)
   42. Bertrand Russell - The Conquest of Happiness (1920)
   43. Michael Sandel - Justice (2009)
   44. Jean Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness (1943)
   45. Arthur Schopenhauer - The World as Will and Representation (1818)
   46. Peter Singer - The Life You Can Save (2009)
   47. Baruch Spinoza - Ethics (1677)
   48. Nassim Nicholas - Taleb The Black Swan (2007)
   49. Ludwig Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigations (1953)
   50. Slavoj Zizek - Living In The End Times (2010)
   ~ Tom Butler-Bowdon, 50 Philosophy Classics,
6:The normative principle I am suggesting for the law is simply this: No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, or aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. There are degrees of seriousness of such invasion, and hence, different proper degrees of restitution or punishment. "Burglary," simple invasion of property for purposes of theft, is less serious than "robbery," where armed force is likely to be used against the victim. Here, however, we are not concerned with the questions of degrees of invasion or punishment, but simply with invasion per se.

If no man may invade another person's "just" property, what is our criterion of justice to be? There is no space here to elaborate on a theory of justice in property titles. Suffice it to say that the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.

Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it. The vague concept of "harm" is substituted for the precise one of physical violence. Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great "harm" to Jim. Once a nonphysical-invasion sense of harm is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified. Should Jim be able to "enjoin" Bob's very existence?

Similarly, A is a successful seller of razor blades. But then B comes along and sells a better blade, teflon-coated to prevent shaving cuts. The value of A's property is greatly affected. Should he be able to collect damages from B, or, better yet, to enjoin B's sale of a better blade? The correct answer is not that consumers would be hurt if they were forced to buy the inferior blade, although that is surely the case. Rather, no one has the right to legally prevent or retaliate against "harms" to his property unless it is an act of physical invasion. Everyone has the right to have the physical integrity of his property inviolate; no one has the right to protect the value of his property, for that value is purely the reflection of what people are willing to pay for it. That willingness solely depends on how they decide to use their money. No one can have a right to someone else's money, unless that other person had previously contracted to transfer it to him.

Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it. (1/2) ~ Murray N Rothbard
7:Physical Invasion

The normative principle I am suggesting for the law is simply this: No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, or aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. There are degrees of seriousness of such invasion, and hence, different proper degrees of restitution or punishment. "Burglary," simple invasion of property for purposes of theft, is less serious than "robbery," where armed force is likely to be used against the victim. Here, however, we are not concerned with the questions of degrees of invasion or punishment, but simply with invasion per se.

If no man may invade another person's "just" property, what is our criterion of justice to be? There is no space here to elaborate on a theory of justice in property titles. Suffice it to say that the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.

Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it. The vague concept of "harm" is substituted for the precise one of physical violence. Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great "harm" to Jim. Once a nonphysical-invasion sense of harm is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified. Should Jim be able to "enjoin" Bob's very existence?

Similarly, A is a successful seller of razor blades. But then B comes along and sells a better blade, teflon-coated to prevent shaving cuts. The value of A's property is greatly affected. Should he be able to collect damages from B, or, better yet, to enjoin B's sale of a better blade? The correct answer is not that consumers would be hurt if they were forced to buy the inferior blade, although that is surely the case. Rather, no one has the right to legally prevent or retaliate against "harms" to his property unless it is an act of physical invasion. Everyone has the right to have the physical integrity of his property inviolate; no one has the right to protect the value of his property, for that value is purely the reflection of what people are willing to pay for it. That willingness solely depends on how they decide to use their money. No one can have a right to someone else's money, unless that other person had previously contracted to transfer it to him.
"Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it. ~ Murray N Rothbard

--- IN CHAPTERS (in Dictionaries, in Quotes, in Chapters)



0







--- WEBGEN

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice
Wikipedia - A Theory of Justice
Wikipedia - A Theory of Justice: The Musical!
change font "color":
change "background-color":
change "font-family":
change "padding": 18190 site hits