don't people value different things? like wouldn't a christian and a muslim pick different rules? i would rather have an interesting world than an equal one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4581080&forum_id=2#40582184)

he also never even addressed any of Rawls' rehabilitative arguments from the next 30 years defending/expanding ATOJ against Nozick and other critics. in later lectures/Q&A's he basically waved off entirely any notion of *actually* believing in the central thesis of AS&U or having any interest in defending it against criticisms, and never even wrote about modern political philosophy again. I think all his subsequent work was in epistemology and some random musings about Plato and other ancient greeks.

in the xo of 20th century Rawls was basically a Fat Plodding Law Beaver who metaphorically spent his entire life and career as Of Counsel at Cravath, slaving away chasing commas and making micro-refinements of style/structure in a one interminable brief that, despite obviously being quite good and highly proficient in a technical sense, was also dry, dense, and in his own words: "a long read, not just in pages." whereas Nozick was basically a cocky yet brilliant WLRK associate who basically steps up after someone else dropped the ball, throwing together some incredible briefs on-the-fly the night before that wows all the partners and the judge's clerks, cops DAT BRICKFUSSSSSSSS in ~6 yrs based on his strength of reputation for same, and then chills out back-slapping and rainmaking, stepping in to do the occasional 'fun' oral argument when it suits him, and dabbling in various areas that strike him as 'interesting,' probably lateraling over to make several multiples of his WLRK draw at Blackrock or KKR or Bain Capital for a few years because 'it sounded interesting,' as Rawls continued slaving away in his $475k/yr zero-job-security Counsel role, with his various Hail Mary IBD apps to Piper Jaffray, Raymond James and RBC Capital Markets getting insta-dinged despite his 12+ years of experience litigating 'complex financial transactions and restructuring disputes' and dem iron chainz of <><><NO IN-HOUSE OFFERS><><> because he didn't do corporate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4581080&forum_id=2#40582774)

besides I'm sure modern liberals would take all sorts of issue with Rawls in general for not being "woke" enough. in particular I'm sure they'd find the very premise of the Original Position/Veil of Ignorance all kinds of 'problematic' in that deliberately removing ex ante consideration of classification and status factors like race and sex undoubtedly furthers oppression by ignoring the 'lived experience' of Black and Brown bodies. totally indifferent, I'm sure, to the fact that the entire point of the thought experiment is to ask how smart people would organize a 'fair' society, divorced of all knowledge of one's chances of occupying an advantaged or disadvantaged rung on the ladder of social hierarchy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4581080&forum_id=2#40582440)

http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/matrawls.htm#2pwr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4581080&forum_id=2#40582466)