Author Archives: F. E. Guerra-Pujol

“We are all libertarians …” –Dr. Julia Maskivker Although Nozick’s valiant pincer movement against Rawls is vulnerable to counter-attack (as we saw in my previous post), Nozick is right about two things: (a) liberty matters, and (b) any attempt to … Continue reading →

“Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights).” –Robert Nozick Thus far (see here and here), we have presented the first flank of Nozick’s powerful pincer attack on Rawls: … Continue reading →

To pick up where I left off in my previous post: Robert Nozick’s “Wilt Chamberlain Argument” is a devastating takedown of the difference principle. To see why, recall Rawls’s main motivating rationale when he wrote A Theory of Justice, i.e. … Continue reading →

I concluded my previous post by stating without qualification that Nozick “totally demolished” Rawls’s difference principle, i.e. Rawls’s claim that social and economic inequalities are only just if they work to the advantage of the least-advantaged members of society. In … Continue reading →

In my previous two posts in this series, I explained why Rawls’s original position is just a dressed-up version of Rousseau’s general will in disguise (see here) and why Rawls’s approach to liberty is, at bottom, no different than Rousseau’s … Continue reading →

In a previous post, I explained why Rawls’s original position is a dressed-up version of Rousseau’s general will in disguise (see here). Today, I will explain why Rawls’s approach to liberty is, at bottom, no different than Rousseau’s. First off, … Continue reading →

Three words: best show ever!

I concluded my previous post thus: “… Rawls and Rousseau are alike in two profound ways. One is that Rawls’s definition of liberty, deep down, is really no different than Rousseau’s. The other is that Rawls’s ‘original position’, in form … Continue reading →

In my previous post, I concluded my series on the seductive but dangerous Jean-Jacques Rousseau with the following observation: “… we are not yet done with Rousseau, not by a mile, for a major 20th century political philosopher would not … Continue reading →

“To protect the social compact from being a mere empty formula, therefore, it silently includes the undertaking that anyone who refuses to obey the general will is to be compelled to do so by the whole body. This single item … Continue reading →