Yascha Mounk and Michael Walzer discuss liberalism, communitarianism, and why some forms of inequality are more acceptable than others.
Very interesting, but how do we get Walzer’s observations packaged and disseminated for consideration by the voting public, our political elites and that immensely wealthy class of technocrats who wish to exercise political influence?
The idea of siloed relations of fungibilities seems absurd on its surface. Only by a Hayekian vision of totalitarian management could such a crystal palace of distributive justice survive, though not for long duration, The equation does not balance between reality and the way some might see a world more just. Persons strive for advantage for themselves and for their families within the context of their communities. A differentiation in the measurement of values is appropriate, but nonetheless self-sorting and not generally susceptible to planning, reality, as always, running before the bow wave of its anticipation. Universal health care, unless accompanied by private options, guarantees for all the best care that free can buy. The point of becoming financially secure is to purchase advantage. The functional integrity of the community limits the expansiveness of that advantage to the extent that it is seen to compromise the enterprise. Charity follows as an outgrowth of community creation: people striving together, but may stop short of failure's enablement. The creation of wealth is the only effective mitigator of poverty in its several definitions. Ladders lead to the middle class. The more robust that engine the fewer people on the streets (except for parades). The potential for the expansion of ‘the good’ implies the pursuit of excellence. Beyond intelligent regulation and common defense, a government of unlimited ambition for the welfare of its people is certainly wrong-headed, peopled by those who drank the cool aid, and corrupt, and often in the way of relevant management of prolems of insoluble dimensiion, the eternal incommensurabels , if one will.
My argument with the descendants of Rawls is touched on in a newly posted essay. ‘Liberty and Justice: morality and the logic of genetic furtherance”
Does wealth really buy access to better education? This is more debatable than it may seem. A generation ago, Caplan and Choy found that the kids of the ‘Boat People’ were thriving in US schools (the very same schools where blacks and Hispanics were failing). Did the parents have any wealth? Of course, not. Did the kids excel anyway? Of course, they did.
More anecdotally, have the children of Lori Loughlin (see the Varsity Blues scandal) really benefited from her wealth. A quote from Jade (her daughter) should answer the question.
“"I don't know how much of school I'm gonna attend," Olivia Jade, a YouTube star and daughter of Full House actress Lori Loughlin, told her fans just before she moved to the University of Southern California (USC) to begin freshman year. "But I'm gonna go in and talk to my deans and everyone, and hope that I can try and balance it all. But I do want the experience of like game days, partying....I don't really care about school, as you guys all know."”