They eschew God only to strive to become “Gods” themselves other other people....
Sounds like a complete misunderstanding of what they are supposed to believe in and that is “Natural Order”.
Free Markets follow the same sort of cycles as lifeforms do, but they want to manipulate and control those because they see their “order” as being “more superior” to the order that is inherent in nature.
Bunch of Hypocrites that claim to believe in the Darwinist principles only to cast them away a short time later as they grasp for control over things like the hand of an obsessively meddling god that strives to meddle so much in the lives and affairs of other men that it would make God himself blush.
According to Rawls, you are to be punished for being talented or enterprising. Of course, you should be automatically ruined if you're parents gave you an edge, but even if you make it by your own efforts you have an unfair advantage...
This is sick on a level that words fail me to describe.
“Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut
(http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html)
If anybody wants on/off the revolutionary progressivism ping list, send me a message
The only way that Rawls’ “Theory of Justice” could be translated into practice is at the barrel of a gun.
The only way we can ever be free of the machinations of those who would try to implement Rawls’ ideas is with the barrel of a gun.
In his case, the shiny tool is the "original position." In a nutshell, it means a fantasy-place where we make desisions on our life paths while being denied any data upon which to make our decision. He then uses a snazzy game-theory method, the "minimax" criterion, without explaining why minima and maxima would make sense in the absense of any data. His underlying metaphysical premise is the old fave of the liberal academician: randomness. How we can decide that randomness is correct without any data upon which to base this assumption? No answer.
Methodologically, he got away with it because mainstream statistics assumes that an event for which we have no data has a 50/50 chance of occurring. That's what makes the math work. But, it's only a methodological assumption. It's not an axiom, and has never been justified as such; it's only a convenient assumption. Great for a professional statistician, but not quite so for a philosopher.
Because he has to smuggle in assumptions that implicitly contradict the very conditions of his "original position" to make his schema work, Rawls' "original position" is just another burst of sophistry. Like other sophistries, it's used to justify positions arrived at earlier - pre-judgements, if you will. One of the findings of classic symbolic logic is that a contradition can be used to "prove" anything.