<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in The Rawls Letter</title><link>http://willwilkinson.disqus.com/</link><description>The Sweet Release of Reason</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:03:06 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Rawls Letter</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/17/the-rawls-letter/#comment-3710196</link><description>Will-&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;"The source of so much of Rawls’s trouble is that he insists on putting his second principle of justice first, even though he knows that it is second for a reason."&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Just musing, but it always seemed to me that when Rawls seemed strict about priority, he never had terribly good reasons; when he had somewhat good reasons (maybe), the priority was not that strict. So even if Rawls "knows" that it is second for a reason,  am I sure he provided a clearly good one.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Timothy Waligore</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:03:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Rawls Letter</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/17/the-rawls-letter/#comment-3710195</link><description>Rawls wrote a 400 page book to prove that if the world were run by him and his buddies from the Harvard Faculty club, it would be like his dream image of Sweeden, but with better weather. Needless to say, that was before the income per capita of Mississippi passed Sweeden.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Robert Schwartz</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:02:31 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>