text: Apparently the difference between a criminal act (theft) and moral redistribution of income is 1) who you steal from (stealing from the wealthy, of course, is moral -- according to Rawls and Bolsheviks), and 2) who receives the loot (the non-wealthy makes it moral), and 3) who commits the act (the state/society, of course also makes theft moral; example - taxation), and 4) your intentions (redistribution of income). To look at this another way, if your neighbor breaks into your house and steals your money, that's a crime (unless your neighbor is poor -- which would then be moral and Justice, according to Rawls' formula). If the community comes into your house and steals from you, it's legal and moral Justice, again, according to Rawls. Because, according to Rawls, if, before you were born, you were to vote with everyone on how physical world society should be structured, you'd vote to have the state guarantee that everyone was equal, or they would be compensated somehow for being born (unjustly) less-equal. How? By compensating those with less by stealing from those with more. So those with more would be like oh, say ... a milk-cow who gets milked to serve those with less. So those with more would become a resource, or state-owned slaves to those with less ... because "society" (the Robin Hoods and Rawls of the world) deemed this as moral Justice. Rawls does not take into account those who are willing to take on risk, entrepreneurs, students of life who work to earn an "A" vs. students who earn an "F". He points out that many people are born into difficult situations through no fault of their own. True. But that does not implicate those within society who are born into better situations as the cause, nor are those who are born into better situations responsible for making up the difference. Forcing the "wealthier" ones to be accountable for the unfairness within life and pay the bill isn't Justice or moral. It would simply be an unjust law. Some people see Rawls' theory as a blueprint for a future generation utopia (like the Bolsheviks envisioned Marxism). I see it as an insane blueprint for slavery, and a powerful dis-incentive for earning personal reward and merit. In a sense, this book is an argument against the individual. It sees the world through a blurred lense where the author only recognizes masses of people -- he doesn't recognize any individuals (unless they were born as victims). Curious. How do you experience life ... as a group-mind (an oxymoron if there ever was one), a collective? Or as a unique, isolated, independent, individual? There should be societal incentives to help each other. Okay. But when it is forced (theft of property always implies force), it is no longer an issue of morality or justice -- it's simply a law. Without personal choice being involved there is no morality as an issue, by definition. Transforming advantaged individuals into mules forced to carry the burdens of the world is a definition of justice for whom?
  
  
  