Or perhaps "Gulf of Anthraxico"?

I didn't know that part about the Tory connection! Actually, I wasn't meaning to laud property-owning democracy; in fact, it partly illustrates my issue with him (preferring to disperse instead of democratize the means of production), which I think I share with you.

…and this required a certain language and tenor. [5/5]

You might also add (d) a commitment to ideal theorizing that insists we need to "identify correct principles" in a way supposedly autonomous from politics. On the other hand, one could argue that he was not addressing himself to socialists but looking to move liberalism leftward,… [4/5]

(a) taking on board too much of Berlin's critique of "positive freedom," (b) taking Keynesian economics as settled doctrine, and (c) that US/European societies were on a more or less given trajectory toward greater egalitarianism and qualified as already "almost just." [3/5]

He fronted inequality, but the concern with class domination and its implications for democracy was still in there—hence his rejection of the postwar welfare state and support of "property-owning democracy." For me, the issue with Rawls comes down to… [2/5]

Offhand, I'd say there's truth to this but it also depends how you read Rawls; there's also a case for distinguishing between what he actually wrote and how he's typically received in many analytic circles. [1/5]