What do you think?
Rate this book
Free and Equal: A Manifesto for a Just Society
Imagine: you are designing a society, but you don't know who you'll be within it - rich or poor, man or woman, gay or straight. What would you want that society to look like?
This is the revolutionary thought experiment proposed by the twentieth century's greatest political philosopher, John Rawls. As economist and philosopher Daniel Chandler argues in this hugely ambitious and exhilarating manifesto, it is by rediscovering Rawls that we can find a way out of the escalating crises that are devastating our world today.
Taking Rawls's humane and egalitarian liberalism as his starting point, Chandler builds a powerful case for a new progressive agenda that would fundamentally reshape our societies for the better. He shows how we can protect free speech and transcend the culture wars; get money out of politics; and create an economy where everyone has the chance to fulfil their potential, where prosperity is widely shared, and which operates within the limits of our finite planet.
This is a book brimming with hope and possibility - a galvanizing alternative to the cynicism that pervades our politics. Free and Equal has the potential to offer a touchstone for a modern, egalitarian liberalism for many years to come, cementing Rawls's place in political discourse, and firmly establishing Chandler as a vital new voice for our time.
This is the revolutionary thought experiment proposed by the twentieth century's greatest political philosopher, John Rawls. As economist and philosopher Daniel Chandler argues in this hugely ambitious and exhilarating manifesto, it is by rediscovering Rawls that we can find a way out of the escalating crises that are devastating our world today.
Taking Rawls's humane and egalitarian liberalism as his starting point, Chandler builds a powerful case for a new progressive agenda that would fundamentally reshape our societies for the better. He shows how we can protect free speech and transcend the culture wars; get money out of politics; and create an economy where everyone has the chance to fulfil their potential, where prosperity is widely shared, and which operates within the limits of our finite planet.
This is a book brimming with hope and possibility - a galvanizing alternative to the cynicism that pervades our politics. Free and Equal has the potential to offer a touchstone for a modern, egalitarian liberalism for many years to come, cementing Rawls's place in political discourse, and firmly establishing Chandler as a vital new voice for our time.
432 pages, Hardcover
Published May 7, 2024
186 people are currently reading
3890 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
Read
June 25, 2023An Inner Look to “Free and Equal”
“Free and Equal” by Daniel Chandler is a book which presents the principles of John Rawls, a famous political scientist and economist. Daniel Chandler sketches out in the opening pages of Free and Equal his concerns regarding the current system in the world, lack of imagination from politicians, intolerable inequality, political polarization, and more importantly, democracy under threat from populism. His presentation of principles of Rawls aims to combat these problems, although achieving these ideals would have a huge price mark.
“Free and Equal” is a book of two halves. The first half is an exposition of Rawls’ central principles. It lays out Rawls’ conception of a fair society, one in which basic freedoms of humans are protected, genuinely fair equality of opportunity for all is secured, and, the economic structure prioritizes the needs of the most disadvantaged. Chandler highlights ideas which could be misunderstood in Rawls, like his recognition that economic inequalities are about power and status as well as wealth and income. These explanations help the reader to comprehend the ideas of Rawls, by being explained by another person.
The second half of the book presents a list of progressive policies organized around Rawls’ principles of justice, among them a written constitution, proportional representation for all communities, abolishing private schools, a universal basic income (UBI), creating a sovereign wealth fund. Chandler summarizes the issues around them effectively and efficiently, he covers so many so quickly that he cannot expect his arguments for them to be definitive. This leads to the small issue of it being clearly less detailed than it should be, but even with less details, Chandler manages to justify Rawls’ claims and policies.
In conclusion, "Free and Equal" by Daniel Chandler is a highly valuable contribution to the discourse on liberalism. Through its interdisciplinary approach, thought-provoking analysis, and accessible writing style, the book stimulates readers to critically reflect on the complexities of equality in today's world. While it may have benefited from a more global perspective, the book remains an insightful resource for anyone interested in understanding and promoting a more “equal” society.
“Free and Equal” by Daniel Chandler is a book which presents the principles of John Rawls, a famous political scientist and economist. Daniel Chandler sketches out in the opening pages of Free and Equal his concerns regarding the current system in the world, lack of imagination from politicians, intolerable inequality, political polarization, and more importantly, democracy under threat from populism. His presentation of principles of Rawls aims to combat these problems, although achieving these ideals would have a huge price mark.
“Free and Equal” is a book of two halves. The first half is an exposition of Rawls’ central principles. It lays out Rawls’ conception of a fair society, one in which basic freedoms of humans are protected, genuinely fair equality of opportunity for all is secured, and, the economic structure prioritizes the needs of the most disadvantaged. Chandler highlights ideas which could be misunderstood in Rawls, like his recognition that economic inequalities are about power and status as well as wealth and income. These explanations help the reader to comprehend the ideas of Rawls, by being explained by another person.
The second half of the book presents a list of progressive policies organized around Rawls’ principles of justice, among them a written constitution, proportional representation for all communities, abolishing private schools, a universal basic income (UBI), creating a sovereign wealth fund. Chandler summarizes the issues around them effectively and efficiently, he covers so many so quickly that he cannot expect his arguments for them to be definitive. This leads to the small issue of it being clearly less detailed than it should be, but even with less details, Chandler manages to justify Rawls’ claims and policies.
In conclusion, "Free and Equal" by Daniel Chandler is a highly valuable contribution to the discourse on liberalism. Through its interdisciplinary approach, thought-provoking analysis, and accessible writing style, the book stimulates readers to critically reflect on the complexities of equality in today's world. While it may have benefited from a more global perspective, the book remains an insightful resource for anyone interested in understanding and promoting a more “equal” society.
July 2, 2023
While the impact of John Rawls’ work on (English-language) political philosophy in the post-war era can hardly be overstated, the same cannot be said of the sphere of public policy. Why is it so has probably a lot to do with both the complexity and rather theoretical nature of the argument, which can be quite puzzling - I remember one conversation with a prominent economist and deputy governor of a central bank in my home country about how “he is fine with the more philosophical approaches to social policy, like from Amartya Sen, but always gets lost around Rawls”. I don’t blame him.
The Free and Equal thus tries to offer a more accessible way to some key tenets of Rawls’ thought - by primarily looking at his three principles of justice - the greatest equal liberty principle, equal opportunity principle and the difference principle and their application. The first part of the book, about a hundred pages, is essentially an explanation of these arguments, their clarification and limited defence. This is essentially a work of analytical political philosophy about Rawls’ ideas of a just society that is fair (notably considering only the level of a national state), which however simplified, is still largely decontextualised and operates in idealised scenarios, so can be not as much difficult to comprehend, as to truly intellectually grasp in its complexity.
The most interesting aspects of the theoretical justifications of these principles for me are the coherent structure of assessing which basic rights take precedence over others (with the general idea being those that are the most necessary for the development and preservation of the political community and liberty on individual and collective level through “public reason”, so greatest benefit for anyone in the society) and the very interesting nature of the difference principle. While the author highlights the just savings principle, as a justification for environmental policy, conservation and limiting of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is the different principle that I believe can be the most revolutionary, if adopted as a part of the presented structure of coherent set of ideas and principles.
Chandler does a great job explaining that the difference principle (that inequality is justified only as much as it allows for the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society) is not so much about the equality or amount of income, but rather about power, opportunity and dignity. This, as well as other aspects of its egalitarianism, while maintaining support for private property, markets, hierarchies or national identities makes Rawls a centrist liberal, that can appeal to both sides of the central part of the political spectrum (while Chandler admits that mostly to the broad “progressive family”)
The other half, or rather two-thirds, of the book, is more interesting and likely more impactful, as it presents a take on the application of these theoretical principles on specific (well, to a limited extent) policy questions and areas. Some are quite common - democratic reforms like doing elections through proportional representation, written constitution, limiting the amount of campaign spending or supporting public broadcasting and media. In the sphere of creating equality of opportunity, Chandler argues for greater support of pre-primary education (expanding instruments like the pupil’s premium in the UK), but also the abolishing of private schools and a form of student fees for universities (so that those who do not attend do not subsidise benefits for the mode advantaged in the society). What is interesting is how radically unradical these ideas sometimes feel - surely for instance the abolishment of private schools in the UK is a dramatic change, but it is well argued on the basis of the difference principle and one can see the coherence of its overall approach.
Other ideas get more novel - like applying market-based solutions to things like declining revenues of serious media outlets or the impact of rich private donors on elections. Chandler proposes “democracy vouchers” of about 50 pounds for every voter, provided by the state, to spend during an election cycle. A version of this measure has been adopted in Seattle for local elections and seems to be working fine. Similarly, he proposes “media vouchers”, that would simulate markets in allowing people to support their favourite media outlets (tied to some specific conditions about transparency or truth in coverage). It is this support for not just private property and markets, but directly market-based incentives that can make Rawls’ ideas a bit uncomfortable for people on the more radical left.
And finally, some policy ideas, especially in the last two chapters, about shared prosperity and workplace democracy are really fascinating and quite radical. Chandler proposes the creation of a ‘citizen’s wealth fund’, a sovereign wealth fund-style instrument, that would be funded by increased taxes (on income from labour and capital income, but also wealth) with equalising effects and intentions. This fund would invest in public companies, without attempts for controlling interest - to maintain the market-based motivations - in order to create a shared source of wealth from shared ownership to fund social programs.
There is of course a case for UBI (emphasised as a tool to give more power to the workers not to be afraid to quit their jobs or to retrain), but also a variation of universal inheritance (like baby bonds). The most convincing case is, however, for compulsory representations of workers on boards of companies (like is done in more tripartite systems and coordinated markets, in Germany or Austria, with a third of board seats in smaller companies and a half in bigger ones) as well as workers’ cooperatives like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain - and Chandler proposes a few policies that would encourage this shared ownership model, through specialised banks creating financing for employee buyouts. The argumentation in this part was for me the most useful part of the book, providing a imaginative justification for policies achieving equity through relatively novel means.
This book does a great job with a difficult subject and its relative novelty is in the application of Rawls’ framework on today’s policy questions. Some parts of it are relatively straightforward, while the philosophical part can be hard to see within the broad framework. Overall, it is a very useful contribution to the debate and Rawls’ arguments can serve as a really structurally coherent base for a progressive manifesto, that might be appealing to a wider range of political groups.
The Free and Equal thus tries to offer a more accessible way to some key tenets of Rawls’ thought - by primarily looking at his three principles of justice - the greatest equal liberty principle, equal opportunity principle and the difference principle and their application. The first part of the book, about a hundred pages, is essentially an explanation of these arguments, their clarification and limited defence. This is essentially a work of analytical political philosophy about Rawls’ ideas of a just society that is fair (notably considering only the level of a national state), which however simplified, is still largely decontextualised and operates in idealised scenarios, so can be not as much difficult to comprehend, as to truly intellectually grasp in its complexity.
The most interesting aspects of the theoretical justifications of these principles for me are the coherent structure of assessing which basic rights take precedence over others (with the general idea being those that are the most necessary for the development and preservation of the political community and liberty on individual and collective level through “public reason”, so greatest benefit for anyone in the society) and the very interesting nature of the difference principle. While the author highlights the just savings principle, as a justification for environmental policy, conservation and limiting of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is the different principle that I believe can be the most revolutionary, if adopted as a part of the presented structure of coherent set of ideas and principles.
Chandler does a great job explaining that the difference principle (that inequality is justified only as much as it allows for the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society) is not so much about the equality or amount of income, but rather about power, opportunity and dignity. This, as well as other aspects of its egalitarianism, while maintaining support for private property, markets, hierarchies or national identities makes Rawls a centrist liberal, that can appeal to both sides of the central part of the political spectrum (while Chandler admits that mostly to the broad “progressive family”)
The other half, or rather two-thirds, of the book, is more interesting and likely more impactful, as it presents a take on the application of these theoretical principles on specific (well, to a limited extent) policy questions and areas. Some are quite common - democratic reforms like doing elections through proportional representation, written constitution, limiting the amount of campaign spending or supporting public broadcasting and media. In the sphere of creating equality of opportunity, Chandler argues for greater support of pre-primary education (expanding instruments like the pupil’s premium in the UK), but also the abolishing of private schools and a form of student fees for universities (so that those who do not attend do not subsidise benefits for the mode advantaged in the society). What is interesting is how radically unradical these ideas sometimes feel - surely for instance the abolishment of private schools in the UK is a dramatic change, but it is well argued on the basis of the difference principle and one can see the coherence of its overall approach.
Other ideas get more novel - like applying market-based solutions to things like declining revenues of serious media outlets or the impact of rich private donors on elections. Chandler proposes “democracy vouchers” of about 50 pounds for every voter, provided by the state, to spend during an election cycle. A version of this measure has been adopted in Seattle for local elections and seems to be working fine. Similarly, he proposes “media vouchers”, that would simulate markets in allowing people to support their favourite media outlets (tied to some specific conditions about transparency or truth in coverage). It is this support for not just private property and markets, but directly market-based incentives that can make Rawls’ ideas a bit uncomfortable for people on the more radical left.
And finally, some policy ideas, especially in the last two chapters, about shared prosperity and workplace democracy are really fascinating and quite radical. Chandler proposes the creation of a ‘citizen’s wealth fund’, a sovereign wealth fund-style instrument, that would be funded by increased taxes (on income from labour and capital income, but also wealth) with equalising effects and intentions. This fund would invest in public companies, without attempts for controlling interest - to maintain the market-based motivations - in order to create a shared source of wealth from shared ownership to fund social programs.
There is of course a case for UBI (emphasised as a tool to give more power to the workers not to be afraid to quit their jobs or to retrain), but also a variation of universal inheritance (like baby bonds). The most convincing case is, however, for compulsory representations of workers on boards of companies (like is done in more tripartite systems and coordinated markets, in Germany or Austria, with a third of board seats in smaller companies and a half in bigger ones) as well as workers’ cooperatives like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain - and Chandler proposes a few policies that would encourage this shared ownership model, through specialised banks creating financing for employee buyouts. The argumentation in this part was for me the most useful part of the book, providing a imaginative justification for policies achieving equity through relatively novel means.
This book does a great job with a difficult subject and its relative novelty is in the application of Rawls’ framework on today’s policy questions. Some parts of it are relatively straightforward, while the philosophical part can be hard to see within the broad framework. Overall, it is a very useful contribution to the debate and Rawls’ arguments can serve as a really structurally coherent base for a progressive manifesto, that might be appealing to a wider range of political groups.
May 23, 2023
I don't often write anything in the way of a review but I enjoyed every single page of this book. Daniel Chandler has a brilliant mind and is one to keep an eye out for in the future.
December 26, 2024
A review by Stuart Jeffries in The Guardian on April 14th of last year which summarises the ideas of this book succinctly and clearly. It would be lovely, even if Mr. Chandler's program can never be fully implemented, managed to pride a fillip to those who want to reverse prevailing conditions in, for example, the USA where 1% of the people own 30% of the nation's wealth
The review:
"If members of the shadow frontbench seek inspiration on how to differentiate their future administration from the mendacious nonentities who have run the country for the past 13 years, they could do worse than read this book. Free and Equal is a stirring call by an LSE philosopher and economist for egalitarian liberalism based on the ideas of John Rawls. The late Harvard professor wrote a book 50 years ago that saw him feted as a political thinker of the calibre of Plato, Hobbes and Mill, but, as far as I can tell, he had precisely zero impact on the real world. Maybe now his time has come.
"In A Theory of Justice, Rawls invited us to imagine what a just society would look like by means of an elegant thought experiment. Suppose, Rawls suggested, that we are all behind what he calls a “veil of ignorance”, with knowledge of our talents, income and wealth, as well as our core values, temporarily erased. In this “original position”, what principles of justice would we agree to be bound by? What kind of social contract would we devise to ensure the society we lived in was a good one? Rawls argued that we would choose a set of basic liberties necessary for flourishing, including freedom of expression and of conscience, and a free choice of occupation.
"On top of these we would also want some principle of fairness; and so Rawls’s “difference principle” asserts that any inequality in society can be justified only to the extent that it benefits the worst off. If, for example, the estimated £2.4m paid in bonuses to Thames Water bosses in 2021 could be shown to improve the lot of its poorest customers – perhaps by encouraging them to run it with such skill that they could cut prices and improve standards – then it would be justifiable. But the fact it was handed out despite rising bills and millions of litres of water leaking from its pipes every day suggests it wasn’t.
"The insights from the original position experiment, which Rawls imagined would be so inspiring as to bind fractured societies together, are what Chandler thinks we need now, not only to make societies more equal, but to fill the moral vacuum at the heart of our politics. It is this, he argues, that “has made space for the rise of illiberal, antidemocratic populism”.
"The first part of his book is a fine elucidation of Rawls’s ideas and critical responses to them, which will be familiar to most philosophy undergraduates. It is the second part, though, in which Chandler applies Rawls’s ideas to our current plight, where things get exciting. He derides Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 manifesto as a wishlist rather than a coherent programme, but his ideas are also a wishlist, albeit underpinned by the Rawlsian conception of justice as fairness, and more committed to the continuation of market economics and capitalism than Corbyn would countenance.
"That wishlist includes a universal basic income sufficient to eliminate poverty (costing about 25% of GDP) awarded to everyone irrespective of wealth, any other income, or whether they’re employed; tertiary education funded by a mix of free tuition and income-contingent loans, and a transfer of wealth to every citizen when they reach adulthood (a reform historically endorsed by the two Thomases, Paine and Piketty, and similar to Gordon Brown’s child trust fund).
"I found Chandler’s suggestions inspiring, not least his call for the abolition of private schools. But surely that measure contradicts the freedom of people to spend their money as they wish? Rawls’s basic liberties, Chandler writes, are necessary preconditions to fairness and so take precedence over equality of opportunity. “But,” he argues, “the freedom to spend large amounts of money on a private education, or indeed to pass on unlimited amounts of wealth through gifts and inheritances, simply doesn’t have the same importance.”
"Chandler’s programme of reforms amounts to a much-needed rebuttal of the idea that existing income and wealth distributions are unobjectionable. But it comes with an eye-watering price tag. He estimates that taxes at around 45-50% of national income would be needed (the UK tax take is currently about 33%). “Building support for higher taxes is a long-term political project,” he says with heroic understatement. Who’s going to vote for massive tax hikes? Not, cynics might retort, the “red wall” Tories who Labour needs to seduce.
"In any case, as we know from economic geniuses Kwasi Kwarteng and Liz Truss, low taxes stimulate growth and high ones scupper it. Not so, counters Chandler: Belgium, Denmark and Finland have experienced similar long-run economic growth to the US since the 1960s, despite having an overall tax rate that is 10-15% higher. Just possibly, voters would pay more to create something that has seemed out of reach since at least 1979, the year Margaret Thatcher was elected to enact an anti-state platform predicated on free market ideology, rather than anything John Rawls would recognise as just or fair.
"If we are really serious about creating a free and equal society, at least some of the ideas Chandler suggests are necessary. Whether the next Labour government has the bottle to put them into practice is another matter."
The review:
"If members of the shadow frontbench seek inspiration on how to differentiate their future administration from the mendacious nonentities who have run the country for the past 13 years, they could do worse than read this book. Free and Equal is a stirring call by an LSE philosopher and economist for egalitarian liberalism based on the ideas of John Rawls. The late Harvard professor wrote a book 50 years ago that saw him feted as a political thinker of the calibre of Plato, Hobbes and Mill, but, as far as I can tell, he had precisely zero impact on the real world. Maybe now his time has come.
"In A Theory of Justice, Rawls invited us to imagine what a just society would look like by means of an elegant thought experiment. Suppose, Rawls suggested, that we are all behind what he calls a “veil of ignorance”, with knowledge of our talents, income and wealth, as well as our core values, temporarily erased. In this “original position”, what principles of justice would we agree to be bound by? What kind of social contract would we devise to ensure the society we lived in was a good one? Rawls argued that we would choose a set of basic liberties necessary for flourishing, including freedom of expression and of conscience, and a free choice of occupation.
"On top of these we would also want some principle of fairness; and so Rawls’s “difference principle” asserts that any inequality in society can be justified only to the extent that it benefits the worst off. If, for example, the estimated £2.4m paid in bonuses to Thames Water bosses in 2021 could be shown to improve the lot of its poorest customers – perhaps by encouraging them to run it with such skill that they could cut prices and improve standards – then it would be justifiable. But the fact it was handed out despite rising bills and millions of litres of water leaking from its pipes every day suggests it wasn’t.
"The insights from the original position experiment, which Rawls imagined would be so inspiring as to bind fractured societies together, are what Chandler thinks we need now, not only to make societies more equal, but to fill the moral vacuum at the heart of our politics. It is this, he argues, that “has made space for the rise of illiberal, antidemocratic populism”.
"The first part of his book is a fine elucidation of Rawls’s ideas and critical responses to them, which will be familiar to most philosophy undergraduates. It is the second part, though, in which Chandler applies Rawls’s ideas to our current plight, where things get exciting. He derides Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 manifesto as a wishlist rather than a coherent programme, but his ideas are also a wishlist, albeit underpinned by the Rawlsian conception of justice as fairness, and more committed to the continuation of market economics and capitalism than Corbyn would countenance.
"That wishlist includes a universal basic income sufficient to eliminate poverty (costing about 25% of GDP) awarded to everyone irrespective of wealth, any other income, or whether they’re employed; tertiary education funded by a mix of free tuition and income-contingent loans, and a transfer of wealth to every citizen when they reach adulthood (a reform historically endorsed by the two Thomases, Paine and Piketty, and similar to Gordon Brown’s child trust fund).
"I found Chandler’s suggestions inspiring, not least his call for the abolition of private schools. But surely that measure contradicts the freedom of people to spend their money as they wish? Rawls’s basic liberties, Chandler writes, are necessary preconditions to fairness and so take precedence over equality of opportunity. “But,” he argues, “the freedom to spend large amounts of money on a private education, or indeed to pass on unlimited amounts of wealth through gifts and inheritances, simply doesn’t have the same importance.”
"Chandler’s programme of reforms amounts to a much-needed rebuttal of the idea that existing income and wealth distributions are unobjectionable. But it comes with an eye-watering price tag. He estimates that taxes at around 45-50% of national income would be needed (the UK tax take is currently about 33%). “Building support for higher taxes is a long-term political project,” he says with heroic understatement. Who’s going to vote for massive tax hikes? Not, cynics might retort, the “red wall” Tories who Labour needs to seduce.
"In any case, as we know from economic geniuses Kwasi Kwarteng and Liz Truss, low taxes stimulate growth and high ones scupper it. Not so, counters Chandler: Belgium, Denmark and Finland have experienced similar long-run economic growth to the US since the 1960s, despite having an overall tax rate that is 10-15% higher. Just possibly, voters would pay more to create something that has seemed out of reach since at least 1979, the year Margaret Thatcher was elected to enact an anti-state platform predicated on free market ideology, rather than anything John Rawls would recognise as just or fair.
"If we are really serious about creating a free and equal society, at least some of the ideas Chandler suggests are necessary. Whether the next Labour government has the bottle to put them into practice is another matter."
September 11, 2024
Rawls always seemed reasonable to me when I read it as part of a course some time ago. But when the principles are put to the test by Daniel chandler in this illuminating book, they appear further away than ever. We need wealth redistribution, increased taxation, proportional representation and workplace democracy (for starters). To be fair many countries have made some progress in some of these areas, but it seems to me that we are moving further away rather than close to the utopia described in the book. It's suggested that progressive parties are the best place to start this structural change but I can't see any chance of this happening apart from the most cursory nod in the general direction. Far from inspiring optimism, the book just made the notion of a fair society far gar out of reach. Recommended as a book - maybe you can find more for optimism than I did.
December 16, 2024
1.5 stars. Had to read this for a work book club and I did find parts of it interesting. However, it mainly felt like a massive slog to get through, and I’m not sure I learnt anything new. Reminded me why I don’t read non-fiction lol
August 12, 2024
This book is a tour de force. It attempts two things. One, to explain Rawls' theory of justice (what a just society would look like) to non-philosophers. Two, to argue that Rawls' theory provides the basis for a political movement, a revival of liberalism, and the rejection of neoliberalism. I think that Chandler succeeds brilliantly in the first objective. Even if you've read Rawls, Chandler's account is a helpful reminder. And if you haven't, it will make what in the original is sometimes dense and murky very clear.
There are places in "Free and Equal" that are, quite simply inspiring. But in other places, I was unconvinced. To take just one example, Chandler argues that respect for equal opportunity should lead us to reject private schools, as has been done in some countries, such as Finland. However, Chandler also presents Rawls as making a strong argument for the liberty to live one's life according to one's most profound values, without government interference. It seems to me that religion can play that role for many people, and that many of them want their children to get a religious education. Or, to take a non-religious example, some people have strong ideas about the approach to education espoused in school, and they want their kids to go to, say, Montessori schools. Chandler's response is to say that fair equality of opportunity is more important than the liberty to send your child to private school but this misses the point. If the choice of a private school stems from one's profound values, it is supported by the first principle of equal liberty, and cannot be outweighed by the principle of fair equality of opportunity, on Chandler's own interpretation of Rawls.
Chandler has done his homework and cites lots of data and examples to support his claims. Nevertheless, I'm sure that many economists would disagree with some of his claims.
These cavils aside, I found myself underlining many passages with enthusiastic agreement. Would Rawls be the basis for a new political movement? I have no idea. Will it appeal to people who do not identify as liberal? Probably not. But it's certainly worth reading.
There are places in "Free and Equal" that are, quite simply inspiring. But in other places, I was unconvinced. To take just one example, Chandler argues that respect for equal opportunity should lead us to reject private schools, as has been done in some countries, such as Finland. However, Chandler also presents Rawls as making a strong argument for the liberty to live one's life according to one's most profound values, without government interference. It seems to me that religion can play that role for many people, and that many of them want their children to get a religious education. Or, to take a non-religious example, some people have strong ideas about the approach to education espoused in school, and they want their kids to go to, say, Montessori schools. Chandler's response is to say that fair equality of opportunity is more important than the liberty to send your child to private school but this misses the point. If the choice of a private school stems from one's profound values, it is supported by the first principle of equal liberty, and cannot be outweighed by the principle of fair equality of opportunity, on Chandler's own interpretation of Rawls.
Chandler has done his homework and cites lots of data and examples to support his claims. Nevertheless, I'm sure that many economists would disagree with some of his claims.
These cavils aside, I found myself underlining many passages with enthusiastic agreement. Would Rawls be the basis for a new political movement? I have no idea. Will it appeal to people who do not identify as liberal? Probably not. But it's certainly worth reading.
December 10, 2023
Het gedachtegoed van John Rawls is het beste wat ik ooit las wat betreft politieke filosofie. Het is zelfs de reden dat ik in 2017 besloot politiek actief te worden. Maar al snel leerde ik dat er in de politiek in Nederland helaas weinig sprake is van een ideeënstrijd.
Ik maak me oprecht zorgen over de toekomst van de wereld en de democratische rechtstaat waarin ik leef. De meest recente verkiezingsuitslag heeft die zorgen bevestigd. Het boek van Chandler komt wat dat betreft op het juiste moment. De vraag is alleen wie de handschoen gaat oppakken…
Wat betreft het boek zelf: het biedt een hele fijne introductie (of opfriscursus in mijn geval) in het gedachtegoed van Rawls. Vervolgens stelt Chandler zich tot doel de abstracte theorie te vertalen naar concrete oplossingen. Hij laat zich daarbij zogezegd leiden door Rawls, maar die raakt af en toe wel een beetje ver uit beeld. De ideeën zijn er niet minder om, maar daarmee wordt de belofte van het boek niet helemaal waargemaakt.
Ik maak me oprecht zorgen over de toekomst van de wereld en de democratische rechtstaat waarin ik leef. De meest recente verkiezingsuitslag heeft die zorgen bevestigd. Het boek van Chandler komt wat dat betreft op het juiste moment. De vraag is alleen wie de handschoen gaat oppakken…
Wat betreft het boek zelf: het biedt een hele fijne introductie (of opfriscursus in mijn geval) in het gedachtegoed van Rawls. Vervolgens stelt Chandler zich tot doel de abstracte theorie te vertalen naar concrete oplossingen. Hij laat zich daarbij zogezegd leiden door Rawls, maar die raakt af en toe wel een beetje ver uit beeld. De ideeën zijn er niet minder om, maar daarmee wordt de belofte van het boek niet helemaal waargemaakt.
June 19, 2024
I slogged over this book, found it both very boring and useful at the same time. Learned a lot (both data and ideas) and disagreed with most of his solutions though agreed with his principles.
These two quotations from the book summarise my reasons for reading till the end:
“Rather than dismiss or condemn those we disagree with, we must recognise that moral and political questions and are genuinely difficult, and that good people will reach different conclusions about them.”
“… if we are to have any chance of improving our societies, we must be willing to engage in the difficult work of listening and persuading that is essential for changing minds and winning votes.”
And Gramsci’s famous quote from 1930 that seems timeless and useless at the same time, “the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born.”
These two quotations from the book summarise my reasons for reading till the end:
“Rather than dismiss or condemn those we disagree with, we must recognise that moral and political questions and are genuinely difficult, and that good people will reach different conclusions about them.”
“… if we are to have any chance of improving our societies, we must be willing to engage in the difficult work of listening and persuading that is essential for changing minds and winning votes.”
And Gramsci’s famous quote from 1930 that seems timeless and useless at the same time, “the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born.”
August 7, 2024
Daniel Chandler's "Free and Equal: A Manifesto for a Just Society" offers a hopeful vision for a fairer society, drawing heavily on the philosophical ideas of John Rawls. The book is a passionate call to action that blends insights from economics, politics, and philosophy to propose a transformative agenda for societal change. Chandler explores how a more just and sustainable economy can be built, advocating for radical reforms in our democracies. The book challenges readers to think expansively about what a fairer world might look like, making it relevant to both seasoned activists and those who aspire to a more equitable political system.
At the heart of Chandler's argument is Rawls's theory of justice, articulated through the thought experiment known as the "original position." In this hypothetical scenario, individuals are tasked with designing a society from scratch without knowing their future position in it. This veil of ignorance ensures that the principles chosen are fair, as no one would want to end up disadvantaged. Rawls asserts two key principles: the protection of everyone's fundamental rights and liberties and the acceptance of economic inequalities only if they benefit everyone, particularly the least well-off. This theory challenges us to prioritize fairness not just in economic terms but also in political power, self-respect, and access to meaningful work.
Chandler extends Rawls's ideas to contemporary issues, emphasizing that fairness also requires sustainability. He argues that we must preserve a healthy environment and sufficient resources for future generations. In a world facing escalating inequality, political polarization, and environmental crises, Rawls's principles demand a societal structure that respects everyone's basic dignity and worth. While perfect equality of outcomes is not the goal, a fair society must ensure that all members can accept the social order as just.
The concept of freedom is central to Chandler's vision of a just society. He advocates for a society where individuals can live according to their beliefs, love whom they choose, practice their religion, and express themselves freely. Despite the progress made in liberal democracies, these freedoms are increasingly threatened by rising populist movements. Chandler calls for a reframing of the polarizing culture wars, suggesting that rather than imposing moral beliefs, we should focus on the universal value of freedom. This approach respects the diversity of individual beliefs while upholding essential freedoms.
However, Chandler acknowledges the complexities that arise when freedoms clash, such as in cases where religious beliefs conflict with anti-discrimination laws. He suggests using Rawls's framework to prioritize the most essential liberties, allowing for some exceptions but generally upholding non-discrimination principles in public life. He also emphasizes the need for a culture of mutual tolerance, where hate speech is condemned, and open-mindedness is taught from an early age.
Chandler's critique extends to the state of democracy itself. He argues that wealth often dictates political influence, undermining the principle of equal participation. He proposes reforms such as proportional representation, automatic voter registration, and public funding for campaigns to reduce the influence of big money in politics. He also advocates for a more informed electorate, suggesting regulations on media ownership and public funding for quality journalism.
Moreover, Chandler explores the idea of direct democracy, where citizens participate more actively in political decision-making. He suggests mechanisms like participatory budgeting and deliberative assemblies, where a representative sample of the population debates and decides on key issues. This blend of electoral and direct democracy aims to create a more egalitarian and responsive political system.
The book also addresses the issue of equal opportunity. Chandler paints a stark picture of the disparities faced by children born into different socioeconomic backgrounds. He argues for significant public investment in early childhood education and support services to level the playing field. He critiques the role of private schools and proposes funding public education more equitably. He also supports measures to make higher education accessible to all, suggesting that college should be free.
Chandler acknowledges the intersections of class, race, and gender in perpetuating inequality. He calls for comprehensive anti-discrimination measures and cultural shifts to address these deep-seated issues. He underscores Rawls's belief that a just society must not let arbitrary factors like birth circumstances determine one's prospects.
In terms of economic justice, Chandler echoes Rawls's critique of extreme inequality. He advocates for policies that ensure everyone has a fair share in society's wealth, such as universal basic income and wealth taxes on the super-rich. He suggests that these taxes should primarily target corporations and large fortunes, not the average worker. Chandler envisions a society where economic disparities are minimized, and everyone has the opportunity to thrive.
In conclusion, "Free and Equal" outlines a comprehensive vision for a fairer society, grounded in Rawls's theory of justice. Chandler's proposals for political and economic reforms are ambitious but grounded in existing precedents. He challenges readers to imagine a society that balances individual freedom with collective justice, ensuring that everyone can live with dignity. The book provides a roadmap for achieving this vision, urging us to commit to the journey toward a more equitable world.
At the heart of Chandler's argument is Rawls's theory of justice, articulated through the thought experiment known as the "original position." In this hypothetical scenario, individuals are tasked with designing a society from scratch without knowing their future position in it. This veil of ignorance ensures that the principles chosen are fair, as no one would want to end up disadvantaged. Rawls asserts two key principles: the protection of everyone's fundamental rights and liberties and the acceptance of economic inequalities only if they benefit everyone, particularly the least well-off. This theory challenges us to prioritize fairness not just in economic terms but also in political power, self-respect, and access to meaningful work.
Chandler extends Rawls's ideas to contemporary issues, emphasizing that fairness also requires sustainability. He argues that we must preserve a healthy environment and sufficient resources for future generations. In a world facing escalating inequality, political polarization, and environmental crises, Rawls's principles demand a societal structure that respects everyone's basic dignity and worth. While perfect equality of outcomes is not the goal, a fair society must ensure that all members can accept the social order as just.
The concept of freedom is central to Chandler's vision of a just society. He advocates for a society where individuals can live according to their beliefs, love whom they choose, practice their religion, and express themselves freely. Despite the progress made in liberal democracies, these freedoms are increasingly threatened by rising populist movements. Chandler calls for a reframing of the polarizing culture wars, suggesting that rather than imposing moral beliefs, we should focus on the universal value of freedom. This approach respects the diversity of individual beliefs while upholding essential freedoms.
However, Chandler acknowledges the complexities that arise when freedoms clash, such as in cases where religious beliefs conflict with anti-discrimination laws. He suggests using Rawls's framework to prioritize the most essential liberties, allowing for some exceptions but generally upholding non-discrimination principles in public life. He also emphasizes the need for a culture of mutual tolerance, where hate speech is condemned, and open-mindedness is taught from an early age.
Chandler's critique extends to the state of democracy itself. He argues that wealth often dictates political influence, undermining the principle of equal participation. He proposes reforms such as proportional representation, automatic voter registration, and public funding for campaigns to reduce the influence of big money in politics. He also advocates for a more informed electorate, suggesting regulations on media ownership and public funding for quality journalism.
Moreover, Chandler explores the idea of direct democracy, where citizens participate more actively in political decision-making. He suggests mechanisms like participatory budgeting and deliberative assemblies, where a representative sample of the population debates and decides on key issues. This blend of electoral and direct democracy aims to create a more egalitarian and responsive political system.
The book also addresses the issue of equal opportunity. Chandler paints a stark picture of the disparities faced by children born into different socioeconomic backgrounds. He argues for significant public investment in early childhood education and support services to level the playing field. He critiques the role of private schools and proposes funding public education more equitably. He also supports measures to make higher education accessible to all, suggesting that college should be free.
Chandler acknowledges the intersections of class, race, and gender in perpetuating inequality. He calls for comprehensive anti-discrimination measures and cultural shifts to address these deep-seated issues. He underscores Rawls's belief that a just society must not let arbitrary factors like birth circumstances determine one's prospects.
In terms of economic justice, Chandler echoes Rawls's critique of extreme inequality. He advocates for policies that ensure everyone has a fair share in society's wealth, such as universal basic income and wealth taxes on the super-rich. He suggests that these taxes should primarily target corporations and large fortunes, not the average worker. Chandler envisions a society where economic disparities are minimized, and everyone has the opportunity to thrive.
In conclusion, "Free and Equal" outlines a comprehensive vision for a fairer society, grounded in Rawls's theory of justice. Chandler's proposals for political and economic reforms are ambitious but grounded in existing precedents. He challenges readers to imagine a society that balances individual freedom with collective justice, ensuring that everyone can live with dignity. The book provides a roadmap for achieving this vision, urging us to commit to the journey toward a more equitable world.
October 28, 2024
Bardzo ciekawa książka, pierwsza część w której autor przedstawia i omawia teorie sprawiedliwości Rawlsa dla mnie jest lepsza od drugiej, w której autor wskazuje jak tą teorię przełożyć na praktyczne rozwiązania, które mogą uczynić państwa demokratyczne bardziej sprawiedliwymi. W części praktycznej autor skupia się na doświadczeniach czy przykładach dotyczących głównie USA i UK, które są średnio przekładalne czy ręcz nie dotyczą państw Europy kontynentalnej.
October 11, 2024
Torrt skriven bok om Rawls från ett mycket amerikanskt perspektiv, tråkigt tråkigt
July 28, 2024
A compelling argument for a more progressive liberalism.
January 1, 2026
Interesting read while venting/discussing how fucked up our society is for the past few hours lol
This was actually really good??? Adding to favourites. Rawls’s theory is more relevant than ever. It challenges us to look beyond our narrow self-interest and design a society that respects everyone’s basic dignity and worth. This doesn’t mean perfect equality of outcomes, but a world where everyone can accept the social order as fair – the essence of justice.
Notes:
- Many thinkers today rightfully critique the problems plaguing our societies – but few offer an inspiring blueprint for a better world.
- Rawl's theory of justice = Imagine you’re tasked with designing a society from scratch, but there’s a catch: you have no idea what position you’ll end up in – rich or poor, man or woman, majority or minority. You would probably choose to design this society as fairly as possible. Otherwise, you could end up in a really disadvantaged position. But what principles would you use to ensure fairness? This thought experiment, known as the “original position,” is the foundation of philosopher John Rawls’s influential theory of justice.
- First, society should protect everyone’s fundamental rights and liberties, like freedom of speech, religion, and the right to vote. Second, Rawls argued that some economic inequality may be acceptable if it benefits everyone through providing incentives. But any other type of inequality is only truly justified if it’s to the benefit of the least well-off.
- Rawls uses inequality and fairness in broad terms – he doesn’t only consider income or wealth but also political power, self-respect, and access to meaningful work. So a fair society isn’t just about redistributing money, but ensuring that everyone can develop their talents, have a voice, and engage in work they find fulfilling.
- Political equality also means that the people who vote are informed enough to make the right decision. Unfortunately, today’s media also tends to do the bidding of the rich. That means we should regulate media ownership to prevent domination by a few billionaire moguls pushing their agendas. At the same time, public funding could support factual, trustworthy journalism.
- By age five, kids from low-income families are already far behind their affluent peers. So public investments in high-quality preschool education and parenting support services is crucial for narrowing these initial disparities. Sadly, our current education systems often end up exacerbating rather than correcting for children’s unequal starting points. The existence of private schools enables rich families to buy educational advantages. (What if we banned private schools and increased funding for public ones?)
Quotes:
- “Rather than dismiss or condemn those we disagree with, we must recognise that moral and political questions and are genuinely difficult, and that good people will reach different conclusions about them.”
- “Inequality is even more extreme in America, where the top 10 per cent receive 39 per cent of national income, compared to just 19 per cent for the bottom half.”
- “Although we cannot create meaningful work by government diktat, we can achieve this by empowering employees to shape their workplaces so that they better reflect their priorities.”
- “Instead, we must reinvent the internal structure of companies themselves, so that workers have the legal right to participate in decision-making on much more equal terms.”
- “… if we are to have any chance of improving our societies, we must be willing to engage in the difficult work of listening and persuading that is essential for changing minds and winning votes.”
- And Gramsci’s famous quote from 1930 that seems timeless and useless at the same time, “the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born.”
This was actually really good??? Adding to favourites. Rawls’s theory is more relevant than ever. It challenges us to look beyond our narrow self-interest and design a society that respects everyone’s basic dignity and worth. This doesn’t mean perfect equality of outcomes, but a world where everyone can accept the social order as fair – the essence of justice.
Notes:
- Many thinkers today rightfully critique the problems plaguing our societies – but few offer an inspiring blueprint for a better world.
- Rawl's theory of justice = Imagine you’re tasked with designing a society from scratch, but there’s a catch: you have no idea what position you’ll end up in – rich or poor, man or woman, majority or minority. You would probably choose to design this society as fairly as possible. Otherwise, you could end up in a really disadvantaged position. But what principles would you use to ensure fairness? This thought experiment, known as the “original position,” is the foundation of philosopher John Rawls’s influential theory of justice.
- First, society should protect everyone’s fundamental rights and liberties, like freedom of speech, religion, and the right to vote. Second, Rawls argued that some economic inequality may be acceptable if it benefits everyone through providing incentives. But any other type of inequality is only truly justified if it’s to the benefit of the least well-off.
- Rawls uses inequality and fairness in broad terms – he doesn’t only consider income or wealth but also political power, self-respect, and access to meaningful work. So a fair society isn’t just about redistributing money, but ensuring that everyone can develop their talents, have a voice, and engage in work they find fulfilling.
- Political equality also means that the people who vote are informed enough to make the right decision. Unfortunately, today’s media also tends to do the bidding of the rich. That means we should regulate media ownership to prevent domination by a few billionaire moguls pushing their agendas. At the same time, public funding could support factual, trustworthy journalism.
- By age five, kids from low-income families are already far behind their affluent peers. So public investments in high-quality preschool education and parenting support services is crucial for narrowing these initial disparities. Sadly, our current education systems often end up exacerbating rather than correcting for children’s unequal starting points. The existence of private schools enables rich families to buy educational advantages. (What if we banned private schools and increased funding for public ones?)
Quotes:
- “Rather than dismiss or condemn those we disagree with, we must recognise that moral and political questions and are genuinely difficult, and that good people will reach different conclusions about them.”
- “Inequality is even more extreme in America, where the top 10 per cent receive 39 per cent of national income, compared to just 19 per cent for the bottom half.”
- “Although we cannot create meaningful work by government diktat, we can achieve this by empowering employees to shape their workplaces so that they better reflect their priorities.”
- “Instead, we must reinvent the internal structure of companies themselves, so that workers have the legal right to participate in decision-making on much more equal terms.”
- “… if we are to have any chance of improving our societies, we must be willing to engage in the difficult work of listening and persuading that is essential for changing minds and winning votes.”
- And Gramsci’s famous quote from 1930 that seems timeless and useless at the same time, “the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born.”
March 5, 2025
Big theory books can be an interesting read. Free and Equal by Daniel Chandler is such a book. The book looks at the decline of liberal democracies around the West and proposes that the theories of John Rawls could revitalise democracies around the world. John Rawls is introduced as the apex political theorist of the 20th century. In some ways, Daniel Chandler is right to put John Rawls on a pedestal. As pointed out by Chandler, before John Rawls in the 20th century, political theory was seen as a branch of political-economics, looking largely at utilitarianism. After John Rawls, it became more interested in ethics and how politics can be impacted by ethics. To be fair, there were political theorists such as Isaiah Berlin operating at the same time as John Rawls. It is true, however, is that John Rawls was probably the most impactful political theorist in the second half of the 20th century.
John Rawls’ theories are looked at in a detailed yet understandable way. The ideas of Rawls, such as the distinction of “primary goods”, the “First Principle” and the deep-rooted liberal principles found in Rawls’ theories. For Rawls, Utilitarianism is a poor way to organise justice. Instead, we should look at the First Principle in which the poorest person should be regarded when making a political decision. This is because under the “veil of ignorance” no one knows which position in society they are born to. As a result, we should favour making political decisions that maximise benefits to the poorest people because luck and chance have made them at the bottom of society. For Rawls, the primary goods include five key ones include “basic rights and liberties; free and fair access to social and economic opportunities; the three that we discussed in the previous chapter: income and wealth; economic power and control; and the social bases of self-respect”. For Rawls his view was that “justice is fairness” and as identified by Daniel Chandler, Rawls views are the “right of over the good” in which rights are emphasised over the common good. I must confess, I have always prioritised the common good over the rights. However, Chandler’s arguments for Rawls’ ideas are rather convincing. Rawls also argues for a sense of reasonableness in politics, in that political argument should try to be reasonable in how we conduct our political debate. This includes detaching our religious beliefs from our political views, so people of different religions can live together and yet have a common set of political principles.
Chandler outlines the different criticisms of Rawls. These include the Right-wing criticism of Rawls, the Left-wing criticism of Rawls, the Communitarian criticism of Rawls and the Realist criticism of Rawls. In each criticism, Chandler attempts to rebut these arguments. For the Right-wing criticism, the largest critique was Robert Nozick, whom I studied as part of my degree. Robert Nozick saw Rawls’ views as a form of Utilitarianism and that there should be a greater focus on natural rights and that Rawls’ form of politics necessarily leads to larger government and therefore less freedom. You only need to look Augusto Pinochet’s Chile or Javier Miele’s Argentina to see how ridiculous the Libertarian argument of less government equals greater freedom. But I digress. The Leftist critique is the opposite of the Rightist critique, in that Rawls’ political goals seem only to prop up the current political system, rather than to transform the current system. There is also the “woke” criticism of Rawls in that he ignored the factors of ethnicity, gender, queerness and other factors in his thinking. The Communitarian criticism was the one that I was most aligned with previously. This involved the criticism of Rawls in how his theories ignore the community and how they are detrimental to “the good”. What struck me was Daniel Chandler’s rebuttal of this. He argues that people cannot involve themselves in the community if there is no support or policies to help them. In this regard, I think there is at least to an extent some kind of way to bridge the infamous Liberal versus Communitarian divide. The realist criticism focuses on how Rawls’ ideas are not practical in the real world.
Part II of the book outlines how Rawls’ political theories can be implemented in the world at large. This section makes up the bulk of the book and applies Rawls’ theories to the world at large. Chandler doesn’t hold back in how Rawls’ political ideas can impact the world at large. There is a wide political programme outlined, including improvements to freedom and moving beyond the culture war, improvements to democracy including People’s Assemblies and proportional representation, environmental policies to save us from the ecological destruction of the world, Universal Basic Income, worker’s cooperatives and worker’s representation on boards. These policies would be firmly rooted in the centre-Left and could be in either a Liberalist programme or a Social Democratic programme. In this regard, Chandler shows how Rawls’ political ideas are both adaptable and yet radical. There is a strong sense of wanting to make the world a better place and seeks to attempt to weaken the move to the Right among most of the world. There is a clear programme that seeks to combat the rise of the Populist Right, which I view as positive.
I think this book does well at outlining the ideas of Rawls and putting them into a workable framework. It is a problem with political theory that it seems that the theory is in the institutions of the academy and not appliable to the world at large. This is different from Chandler’s book. This highlights the benefits of what progressive politics has to offer and provides a framework to save democracy. I struggle to fault this book, even when I have come from a “Communitarian” framework. Free and Equal is definitely a book that progressives and Leftists should read for inspiration in how to promote change in this dark age of nationalism.
John Rawls’ theories are looked at in a detailed yet understandable way. The ideas of Rawls, such as the distinction of “primary goods”, the “First Principle” and the deep-rooted liberal principles found in Rawls’ theories. For Rawls, Utilitarianism is a poor way to organise justice. Instead, we should look at the First Principle in which the poorest person should be regarded when making a political decision. This is because under the “veil of ignorance” no one knows which position in society they are born to. As a result, we should favour making political decisions that maximise benefits to the poorest people because luck and chance have made them at the bottom of society. For Rawls, the primary goods include five key ones include “basic rights and liberties; free and fair access to social and economic opportunities; the three that we discussed in the previous chapter: income and wealth; economic power and control; and the social bases of self-respect”. For Rawls his view was that “justice is fairness” and as identified by Daniel Chandler, Rawls views are the “right of over the good” in which rights are emphasised over the common good. I must confess, I have always prioritised the common good over the rights. However, Chandler’s arguments for Rawls’ ideas are rather convincing. Rawls also argues for a sense of reasonableness in politics, in that political argument should try to be reasonable in how we conduct our political debate. This includes detaching our religious beliefs from our political views, so people of different religions can live together and yet have a common set of political principles.
Chandler outlines the different criticisms of Rawls. These include the Right-wing criticism of Rawls, the Left-wing criticism of Rawls, the Communitarian criticism of Rawls and the Realist criticism of Rawls. In each criticism, Chandler attempts to rebut these arguments. For the Right-wing criticism, the largest critique was Robert Nozick, whom I studied as part of my degree. Robert Nozick saw Rawls’ views as a form of Utilitarianism and that there should be a greater focus on natural rights and that Rawls’ form of politics necessarily leads to larger government and therefore less freedom. You only need to look Augusto Pinochet’s Chile or Javier Miele’s Argentina to see how ridiculous the Libertarian argument of less government equals greater freedom. But I digress. The Leftist critique is the opposite of the Rightist critique, in that Rawls’ political goals seem only to prop up the current political system, rather than to transform the current system. There is also the “woke” criticism of Rawls in that he ignored the factors of ethnicity, gender, queerness and other factors in his thinking. The Communitarian criticism was the one that I was most aligned with previously. This involved the criticism of Rawls in how his theories ignore the community and how they are detrimental to “the good”. What struck me was Daniel Chandler’s rebuttal of this. He argues that people cannot involve themselves in the community if there is no support or policies to help them. In this regard, I think there is at least to an extent some kind of way to bridge the infamous Liberal versus Communitarian divide. The realist criticism focuses on how Rawls’ ideas are not practical in the real world.
Part II of the book outlines how Rawls’ political theories can be implemented in the world at large. This section makes up the bulk of the book and applies Rawls’ theories to the world at large. Chandler doesn’t hold back in how Rawls’ political ideas can impact the world at large. There is a wide political programme outlined, including improvements to freedom and moving beyond the culture war, improvements to democracy including People’s Assemblies and proportional representation, environmental policies to save us from the ecological destruction of the world, Universal Basic Income, worker’s cooperatives and worker’s representation on boards. These policies would be firmly rooted in the centre-Left and could be in either a Liberalist programme or a Social Democratic programme. In this regard, Chandler shows how Rawls’ political ideas are both adaptable and yet radical. There is a strong sense of wanting to make the world a better place and seeks to attempt to weaken the move to the Right among most of the world. There is a clear programme that seeks to combat the rise of the Populist Right, which I view as positive.
I think this book does well at outlining the ideas of Rawls and putting them into a workable framework. It is a problem with political theory that it seems that the theory is in the institutions of the academy and not appliable to the world at large. This is different from Chandler’s book. This highlights the benefits of what progressive politics has to offer and provides a framework to save democracy. I struggle to fault this book, even when I have come from a “Communitarian” framework. Free and Equal is definitely a book that progressives and Leftists should read for inspiration in how to promote change in this dark age of nationalism.
November 5, 2023
I did enjoy this book and it put forward some interesting ideas on how societies could be fairer. It’s quite the wish list and I’d certainly be happy to sign up for the type of society described in the book. However, the approach is to reform institutions, the same institutions that have led to the growing inequality the book is trying to address and I just don’t see how these changes could be implemented without radical social transformation that overthrew the existing status quo.
June 3, 2024
an interesting combination of ideas which reads well, i feel like i understand rawls in a much greater context now too :)
September 18, 2024
Rawls argued that, in the end, we should prefer the difference principle because it embodies an ideal of reciprocity. For Rawls, a just society is one in which we can “face one another openly,” in the sense that we can offer a justification to one another for the way society is organized, including to the least well off. Restricted utilitarianism, by contrast, appeals not to reciprocity but to an improbable degree of altruism or selflessness: it permits a situation in which we ask the poorest in society to make sacrifices so that other people who are already richer than they are can have even more. For Rawls, the importance of reciprocity in justifying the difference principle is pragmatic as well as moral. He argued that by appealing to reciprocity rather than altruism, the difference principle was grounded in a more realistic account of human psychology, and so more likely to secure the ongoing support of real-life citizens; a position that, as we shall see in the next chapter, is strongly supported by the latest research in moral psychology, and which has deep roots in human evolution.
notes: the first half of this book are an excellent and straightforward primer on john rawls’s theory of justice, especially as a tool for practical politics. the latter half is a sketch of an agenda rooted in the theory — useful and far-reaching, though if you’re regularly
submerged in left-wing policy world it’s a bit of a laundry list. always lovely to see a serious proposal for banning private schools — my personal hobby horse. :)
in a note not in the spirit of rawls or this book (which rightly preach tolerance, understanding, and grace of other people’s sincerely-held views), many of the reviews of this book on this website are immensely stupid and irritating. “the proposals are unrealistic” is such an insipid perspective. that’s the message of this book — if you takes rawls’s theory seriously and apply it to our society, immense change is required. looking away from that, or complaining that we should lower our sights, misses the point. you cannot answer the question “how can we radically reform our society to be just, equal, and fair?” with a conversation rooted in what can get through a republican filibuster in the US senate, or whatever. infuriating.
May 16, 2025
Qué maravilla de libro.
La libertad y la justicia se convierten, a partir de una revisión del pensamiento de Rawls, en las bases para imaginar una sociedad democrática e igualitaria, analizar los obstáculos para alcanzarla y plantear las distintas medidas que nos acercarían a ella.
El punto de partida es una situación hipotética en la que tuviéramos que diseñar una sociedad de manera en la que, sin conocer ningún aspecto de nuestro futuro lugar en ella, pudiéramos aceptarlo.
Me parece que el libro tiene tres grandes puntos fuertes. El primero, que plantea desde una base muy sólida un equilibrio entre la libertad y la igualdad como pilares, de modo que en ambos casos hay un centro imprescindible y una periferia que no debe sobreponerse al centro de la otra. Así, muy en resumen, la libertad de expresión primaría en lo más fundamental sobre una igualdad económica absoluta, al mismo tiempo que la igualdad de oportunidades es más importante que una actividad económica sin ningún tipo de regulación.
El segundo es, sin duda, la concreción. Su formación como filósofo y economista se refleja en su enfoque, de modo que se apoya en estudios de todos los ámbitos de los que opina para proponer medidas concretas, manejando los datos correspondientes.
Y el tercero es la pluralidad. Además de comentar cómo dialoga esta postura con otras políticas y con las posibles críticas, siempre plantea varias posibles medidas como opciones viables antes de decantarse por alguna de ellas.
Comenta a fondo, por ejemplo, la calidad democrática de nuestras instituciones, el impacto de la oligarquía y posibles maneras de lidiar con él incluso en el sector mediático, o una revisión de nuestros sistemas de impuestos, sin olvidar cuestiones como la raza y el género.
Tengo demasiado subrayado el libro para buscar ahora citas, pero me quedo en especial con su apuesta por un ingreso mínimo, con la "democracia laboral" y con su propuesta de financiación pública de medios de comunicación en base a una especie de "suscripciones" ciudadanas.
No me parece en absoluto que sea necesario compartir todas sus opiniones para que el libro merezca mucho la pena leerlo.
La libertad y la justicia se convierten, a partir de una revisión del pensamiento de Rawls, en las bases para imaginar una sociedad democrática e igualitaria, analizar los obstáculos para alcanzarla y plantear las distintas medidas que nos acercarían a ella.
El punto de partida es una situación hipotética en la que tuviéramos que diseñar una sociedad de manera en la que, sin conocer ningún aspecto de nuestro futuro lugar en ella, pudiéramos aceptarlo.
Me parece que el libro tiene tres grandes puntos fuertes. El primero, que plantea desde una base muy sólida un equilibrio entre la libertad y la igualdad como pilares, de modo que en ambos casos hay un centro imprescindible y una periferia que no debe sobreponerse al centro de la otra. Así, muy en resumen, la libertad de expresión primaría en lo más fundamental sobre una igualdad económica absoluta, al mismo tiempo que la igualdad de oportunidades es más importante que una actividad económica sin ningún tipo de regulación.
El segundo es, sin duda, la concreción. Su formación como filósofo y economista se refleja en su enfoque, de modo que se apoya en estudios de todos los ámbitos de los que opina para proponer medidas concretas, manejando los datos correspondientes.
Y el tercero es la pluralidad. Además de comentar cómo dialoga esta postura con otras políticas y con las posibles críticas, siempre plantea varias posibles medidas como opciones viables antes de decantarse por alguna de ellas.
Comenta a fondo, por ejemplo, la calidad democrática de nuestras instituciones, el impacto de la oligarquía y posibles maneras de lidiar con él incluso en el sector mediático, o una revisión de nuestros sistemas de impuestos, sin olvidar cuestiones como la raza y el género.
Tengo demasiado subrayado el libro para buscar ahora citas, pero me quedo en especial con su apuesta por un ingreso mínimo, con la "democracia laboral" y con su propuesta de financiación pública de medios de comunicación en base a una especie de "suscripciones" ciudadanas.
No me parece en absoluto que sea necesario compartir todas sus opiniones para que el libro merezca mucho la pena leerlo.
October 28, 2024
This guy might be one to watch.
You would've thought that the recession of 2008, the worst crisis of capitalism in nearly a lifetime, would've benefitted the left, particularly the hard left. Instead, in the years since, the opposite has happened. With both the centrist playbook and the radical alternatives struggling, how are we supposed to create a more equal society? Enter Daniel Chandler, who looks for answers in a theory developed 50 years ago by the philosopher John Rawls — A Theory of Justice.
This book is accessibly written and fairly short. The first 100 pages summarise what Rawls argued in over 600. The remaining 150 discuss how Rawls' ideas could be used to address the challenges of the present and foreseeable future. Chandler's suggestions are a mix of radical long-term ambition (Nordic tax rates, the abolition of private schools), centrist caution (accepting markets in principle, scepticism to hate speech laws) and, most interestingly, overlooked alternatives (bigger roles for sortition, workplace democracy).
On their own, these suggestions would form a well-argued laundry list. And that's why placing them in Rawls' framework is a masterstroke. It gives what he argues for a sense of shape and purpose. Maybe, just maybe, a sense of inspiration too. That doesn't get round how they are probably too realistic for idealists and too idealistic for realists. But the latter could do with something to be idealistic about, and they are the ones who would benefit the most from this book.
A nitpick: on page 148, the UK's "2014 election" was actually in 2015.
You would've thought that the recession of 2008, the worst crisis of capitalism in nearly a lifetime, would've benefitted the left, particularly the hard left. Instead, in the years since, the opposite has happened. With both the centrist playbook and the radical alternatives struggling, how are we supposed to create a more equal society? Enter Daniel Chandler, who looks for answers in a theory developed 50 years ago by the philosopher John Rawls — A Theory of Justice.
This book is accessibly written and fairly short. The first 100 pages summarise what Rawls argued in over 600. The remaining 150 discuss how Rawls' ideas could be used to address the challenges of the present and foreseeable future. Chandler's suggestions are a mix of radical long-term ambition (Nordic tax rates, the abolition of private schools), centrist caution (accepting markets in principle, scepticism to hate speech laws) and, most interestingly, overlooked alternatives (bigger roles for sortition, workplace democracy).
On their own, these suggestions would form a well-argued laundry list. And that's why placing them in Rawls' framework is a masterstroke. It gives what he argues for a sense of shape and purpose. Maybe, just maybe, a sense of inspiration too. That doesn't get round how they are probably too realistic for idealists and too idealistic for realists. But the latter could do with something to be idealistic about, and they are the ones who would benefit the most from this book.
A nitpick: on page 148, the UK's "2014 election" was actually in 2015.
February 23, 2025
A well-researched book for sure, with plenty of data and statistics that support the author's arguments. My main critique of the book is not necessarily about its arguments or whether I disagree with the author's philosophies. It’s that the theories sound good on paper, but some would be really difficult to implement, and others would most probably fail.
An important factor of a policy is its continuity, and today's electorate mostly wants quick, radical results. This puts the end goal at risk due to rapidly changing political powers. A government might implement a policy with a clear path, but if it is not convincing enough, it risks being repealed by the next government. And just like that, it's dead before any positive results are achieved.
This doesn't mean we should give up on policies with long-term benefits, but it raises many questions about how people with totally different morals and perspectives could agree on a policy that benefits everyone. These questions were not properly answered here, and the obstacles to making such policies bipartisan with tangible results are enormous. And just because a policy was successful in country A doesn’t necessarily mean it will lead to success in country B, given the vast differences between the countries.
In the end, the book was dense, with many repetitions and unnecessary details. This made it difficult to get through, and at times, I almost gave up on finishing it. While it raises some good suggestions, it fails to be convincing or engaging.
An important factor of a policy is its continuity, and today's electorate mostly wants quick, radical results. This puts the end goal at risk due to rapidly changing political powers. A government might implement a policy with a clear path, but if it is not convincing enough, it risks being repealed by the next government. And just like that, it's dead before any positive results are achieved.
This doesn't mean we should give up on policies with long-term benefits, but it raises many questions about how people with totally different morals and perspectives could agree on a policy that benefits everyone. These questions were not properly answered here, and the obstacles to making such policies bipartisan with tangible results are enormous. And just because a policy was successful in country A doesn’t necessarily mean it will lead to success in country B, given the vast differences between the countries.
In the end, the book was dense, with many repetitions and unnecessary details. This made it difficult to get through, and at times, I almost gave up on finishing it. While it raises some good suggestions, it fails to be convincing or engaging.
August 23, 2024
I liked the idea of expanding on John Rawls. How would you take Rawls' ideas of justice and apply them in a practical way in the world we live in? Could you craft a coherent political program around them? Mr. Chandler shows how this is possible, though a lot of what he suggests is unlikely to ever happen as he freely acknowledges.
But practicality aside, the flaw I saw in Mr. Chandler's program is essentially the same as the flaw that I have always seen in Rawls. Rawls argues that if we start from an "original position" behind a "veil of ignorance" we will mostly all agree on principals of justice and fairness around which society should be organized. If you don't know whether you will be rich or poor, beautiful or ugly, then you will pick a world that will give you a decent life no matter what and a chance to excel if you happen to be born lucky. But I'm not sure that everybody thinks that way. Maybe most people who are schooled in American individualism would make many of the same choices as Rawls and Chandler. But that certainly isn't the only way to organize human society and perhaps not the best. There's a certain arrogance in believing that you would make the same choices from the original position as I would.
But practicality aside, the flaw I saw in Mr. Chandler's program is essentially the same as the flaw that I have always seen in Rawls. Rawls argues that if we start from an "original position" behind a "veil of ignorance" we will mostly all agree on principals of justice and fairness around which society should be organized. If you don't know whether you will be rich or poor, beautiful or ugly, then you will pick a world that will give you a decent life no matter what and a chance to excel if you happen to be born lucky. But I'm not sure that everybody thinks that way. Maybe most people who are schooled in American individualism would make many of the same choices as Rawls and Chandler. But that certainly isn't the only way to organize human society and perhaps not the best. There's a certain arrogance in believing that you would make the same choices from the original position as I would.
August 6, 2024
Hard for me to rate (3.5 is what I'm feeling). I really liked the Theory of Justice by Rawles only because I felt it was leading to something. However, with the progression of the book, I started understanding that the way the author was approaching the theory was too idealistic. The theory itself has promises but works only in a utopian society if followed by the book.
At least some aspects of the theory are historically justified, for example, freedom for all and reaching a tolerant level at that, leveraging inequalities to ensure incentives for the least well-off, taxing the super elites and so on.
By the same token, you’d find claims that were blatantly unrealistic - universal basic income, banning private schools, taxing half of the national incomes and more.
I get that the author was writing out of the liberal democratic corner to show off how his political stance plays into his favorite philosopher's work but that's, unfortunately, not a very accurate gauge at the theory itself.
At least some aspects of the theory are historically justified, for example, freedom for all and reaching a tolerant level at that, leveraging inequalities to ensure incentives for the least well-off, taxing the super elites and so on.
By the same token, you’d find claims that were blatantly unrealistic - universal basic income, banning private schools, taxing half of the national incomes and more.
I get that the author was writing out of the liberal democratic corner to show off how his political stance plays into his favorite philosopher's work but that's, unfortunately, not a very accurate gauge at the theory itself.
August 6, 2024
This is a tough issue to take but, “Daniel Chandler sketched out the blueprint for a fair society based on philosopher John Rawls' theory of justice. His thought experiment of designing a society from scratch leads to two key principles, protecting fundamental rights and liberties for all and ensuring inequalities benefit everyone, especially the least advantaged. Rawls' ideas have profound implications for how we should structure our political and economic systems. They call for strengthening democracy by getting money out of politics, empowering citizens through participatory budgeting and fostering a free and diverse media landscape.”
I agree with most of Daniel’s sentiments like, “On the economic front, we need to implement bold measures like universal basic income, wealth taxes on the super-rich and employee ownership to create more shared prosperity. While ambitious, many of these reforms have precedents in various countries. They provide a roadmap for a more just society that respects individual freedom while ensuring everyone can live with dignity. “
I agree with most of Daniel’s sentiments like, “On the economic front, we need to implement bold measures like universal basic income, wealth taxes on the super-rich and employee ownership to create more shared prosperity. While ambitious, many of these reforms have precedents in various countries. They provide a roadmap for a more just society that respects individual freedom while ensuring everyone can live with dignity. “
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 6, 2024
Summary:
The author's thought experiment of designing a society from scratch leads to two key principles, protecting fundamental rights and liberties for all and ensuring inequalities benefit everyone, especially the least advantaged. Rawls' ideas have profound implications for how we should structure our political and economic systems. They call for strengthening democracy by getting money out of politics, empowering citizens through participatory budgeting and fostering a free and diverse media landscape. On the economic front, we need to implement bold measures like universal basic income, wealth taxes on the super-rich and employee ownership to create more shared prosperity. While ambitious, many of these reforms have precedents in various countries. They provide a roadmap for a more just society that respects individual freedom while ensuring everyone can live with dignity.
The author's thought experiment of designing a society from scratch leads to two key principles, protecting fundamental rights and liberties for all and ensuring inequalities benefit everyone, especially the least advantaged. Rawls' ideas have profound implications for how we should structure our political and economic systems. They call for strengthening democracy by getting money out of politics, empowering citizens through participatory budgeting and fostering a free and diverse media landscape. On the economic front, we need to implement bold measures like universal basic income, wealth taxes on the super-rich and employee ownership to create more shared prosperity. While ambitious, many of these reforms have precedents in various countries. They provide a roadmap for a more just society that respects individual freedom while ensuring everyone can live with dignity.
May 16, 2024
This is a creative and thoughtful book that uses John Rawls' ideas to rethink contemporary political and economic questions. Rawls is one of the most important liberal thinkers of the 20th century, but his work has remained influential mostly within the academy. This is in part because Rawls was a rather dense writer concerned with philosophical system-building rather than policy application or communication to the public. Chandler tries to bring Rawls' ideas to a larger audience and to the present-day. I didn't think the resulting book was perfect, but it was worthwhile.
Chandler starts the book with an exploration of Rawls' core ideas. The heart of Rawls' philosophy was the idea that society should be fair as well as free. This freedom/equality tension is at the heart of western political thought, oscillating from the statism of most forms of socialism to full-on libertarianism on the other end. Rawls, however, sought to reconcile these goods through the original position thought experiment. Imagine yourself and other trying to design a society as if you did not know anything about yourself other than that you would want a basic set of goods: some extent of freedom, material things to provide a decent life, decency, community, a chance of self-fulfillment. You don't know your race, gender, class, religion, etc, so you don't know if you are going to be a social elite or an outsider of whatever group/identity, so you have to think about what kind of social institutions are fair because you might end, by luck of the draw, in one of hte lesser categories.
Rawls says we can reason our way from the original position to a form of liberal social democracy. You would not have a system in which one social group dominated another, whether it was a race, class, gender, religious group, etc, bc you might end up in the subordinated group. You would probably want some fairer distribution of income and the avoidance of a super-rich controlling everything, as the odds are that you would not be in that tiny elite. You would likely want a certain level of welfare state, a good and broad educational system, and systems of work that provided meaning, decent pay, and some level of control by workers (after all, you are more likely to be a worker of whatever category). You would want broad freedom of conscience and faith rather than one group imposing their views on others or everyone trying to do that to each other. I have always liked this experiment as a way to challenge people to think beyond their identities toward a more equitable but still robustly free society.
There are a few other useful Rawlsian principles that are worth noting. One is the difference principle, or the idea that inequality in society is justified insofar as it benefits society as a whole, particularly the least fortunate. Allowing people to profit through the market can lead to innovations and products that benefit everyone, and their isn't really a better way to figure out the manufacture and distribution of goods other than with markets. But the difference principle keeps our focus on what activities provide broad benefits rather than enabling the hyper-concentration of wealth, which of course then throws off political systems. Rawls is not anti-private property nor anti-profit motive, acknowledging that the right to possessions is a key part of a stable world and that the market can provide benefits and innovations that are hard to get elsewhere. This to me is a nice way to blend the strengths of socialism and capitalism, giving ordinary people a say in how that balance is achieved.
Another nice principle is the future savings principle, which derives from the idea that in the original position you don't know if you will be 2 years old or 80. No one would design a social system in which older generations raided nature or destroyed the environment in ways that made life for younger people harder, or even impossible. Hence societies should make sure that present gains don't come at the expense of the future.
The point of Rawlsian liberalism is to provide philosophical coherence to a type of inclusive, egalitarian liberal socialism that is not necessarily hostile to the market. It pushes away from the top-down statism of socialism while taking much of the edge off neoliberal capitalism. It tries to make democratic rights and participation more meaningful by preventing the mega-rich from dominating and enabling ordinary people to have more time and energy to devote to politics/activism (after all, freedom of speech or the right to vote are less meaningful if you are starving).
The second part of the book was thoughtful but less interesting to me, as it involved a lot of rather technical solutions to the economy, politics, and teh workplace. These included lots of things I agree with (proportional representation, stronger graduated taxes, a stronger welfare state, universal pre-K, stronger support for young parents, labor rights, etc) and a few I was skeptical of (disallowing private schools, allowing a certain percentage of workers at a firm to take the firm over). At times I wish Chandler had spent a little more time explaining what was Rawslian about these principles. My main critique of the book would be that the second half often felt like a grab bag of liberal/progressive policies without much direct application of Rawls.
Still, this is a thoughtful book and an admirable effort at making philosophy relevant to real-world problems. I definitely have a stronger grasp of Rawls and his critics. I always want to commend Chandler for his even-handedness, as he had Rawls-based criticisms for liberals, socialists, and conservatives alike.
Chandler starts the book with an exploration of Rawls' core ideas. The heart of Rawls' philosophy was the idea that society should be fair as well as free. This freedom/equality tension is at the heart of western political thought, oscillating from the statism of most forms of socialism to full-on libertarianism on the other end. Rawls, however, sought to reconcile these goods through the original position thought experiment. Imagine yourself and other trying to design a society as if you did not know anything about yourself other than that you would want a basic set of goods: some extent of freedom, material things to provide a decent life, decency, community, a chance of self-fulfillment. You don't know your race, gender, class, religion, etc, so you don't know if you are going to be a social elite or an outsider of whatever group/identity, so you have to think about what kind of social institutions are fair because you might end, by luck of the draw, in one of hte lesser categories.
Rawls says we can reason our way from the original position to a form of liberal social democracy. You would not have a system in which one social group dominated another, whether it was a race, class, gender, religious group, etc, bc you might end up in the subordinated group. You would probably want some fairer distribution of income and the avoidance of a super-rich controlling everything, as the odds are that you would not be in that tiny elite. You would likely want a certain level of welfare state, a good and broad educational system, and systems of work that provided meaning, decent pay, and some level of control by workers (after all, you are more likely to be a worker of whatever category). You would want broad freedom of conscience and faith rather than one group imposing their views on others or everyone trying to do that to each other. I have always liked this experiment as a way to challenge people to think beyond their identities toward a more equitable but still robustly free society.
There are a few other useful Rawlsian principles that are worth noting. One is the difference principle, or the idea that inequality in society is justified insofar as it benefits society as a whole, particularly the least fortunate. Allowing people to profit through the market can lead to innovations and products that benefit everyone, and their isn't really a better way to figure out the manufacture and distribution of goods other than with markets. But the difference principle keeps our focus on what activities provide broad benefits rather than enabling the hyper-concentration of wealth, which of course then throws off political systems. Rawls is not anti-private property nor anti-profit motive, acknowledging that the right to possessions is a key part of a stable world and that the market can provide benefits and innovations that are hard to get elsewhere. This to me is a nice way to blend the strengths of socialism and capitalism, giving ordinary people a say in how that balance is achieved.
Another nice principle is the future savings principle, which derives from the idea that in the original position you don't know if you will be 2 years old or 80. No one would design a social system in which older generations raided nature or destroyed the environment in ways that made life for younger people harder, or even impossible. Hence societies should make sure that present gains don't come at the expense of the future.
The point of Rawlsian liberalism is to provide philosophical coherence to a type of inclusive, egalitarian liberal socialism that is not necessarily hostile to the market. It pushes away from the top-down statism of socialism while taking much of the edge off neoliberal capitalism. It tries to make democratic rights and participation more meaningful by preventing the mega-rich from dominating and enabling ordinary people to have more time and energy to devote to politics/activism (after all, freedom of speech or the right to vote are less meaningful if you are starving).
The second part of the book was thoughtful but less interesting to me, as it involved a lot of rather technical solutions to the economy, politics, and teh workplace. These included lots of things I agree with (proportional representation, stronger graduated taxes, a stronger welfare state, universal pre-K, stronger support for young parents, labor rights, etc) and a few I was skeptical of (disallowing private schools, allowing a certain percentage of workers at a firm to take the firm over). At times I wish Chandler had spent a little more time explaining what was Rawslian about these principles. My main critique of the book would be that the second half often felt like a grab bag of liberal/progressive policies without much direct application of Rawls.
Still, this is a thoughtful book and an admirable effort at making philosophy relevant to real-world problems. I definitely have a stronger grasp of Rawls and his critics. I always want to commend Chandler for his even-handedness, as he had Rawls-based criticisms for liberals, socialists, and conservatives alike.
September 17, 2024
I listened to the audiobook and am glad I did. I first heard Daniel Chandler on WITH Pod, with Chris Hayes. There was a repetitive quality to this book which, on the surface, left me a little bored at times, but I ultimately appreciate b/c the repetition allowed Rawl's basic principles and liberties to sink in. The difference principle is now stamped in my head (and in my heart a little too).
I currently disagree vehemently with the abolishment of private schools - religious education is just one example of a value that many families hold, and should not be practically diminished by law - but affirm much of what Chandler teachers, and helps us to see is possible if we act.
I currently disagree vehemently with the abolishment of private schools - religious education is just one example of a value that many families hold, and should not be practically diminished by law - but affirm much of what Chandler teachers, and helps us to see is possible if we act.
March 3, 2025
The prose makes this a hard book to read, very much based in ethical philosophy with tangles of explanations to pin down the meanings. Still, it's well written, just not easy. This is a reworking of the ethical theory of John Rawls, whose philosophy outlined in the famous "A Theory of Justice" still stands as one of the best and most articulate examples of liberal politics. Like Rawls' even harder-to-read work, this book explores how to think about and establish a more just and fair society. It redefines terms we use all the time and makes them sharper and more useful. It makes us sharper and more useful, too.
March 27, 2025
As a historical account and re-contextualization of Rawls in modern politics, this is extremely successful. Chandler knows his political philosophy and navigates it at a leisurely pace, easily understood by the average reader.
As an application of Rawls to policies, it falls extremely short. I was left with this questions of, ok so what? Great, we have the theory, we have the original position and the veil of ignorance, how do we apply that tangibly? That's what I wanted to know. And I think so say in the afterword that well, the how is not about how we bring this to policies, but rather, how we build momentum, is an unsatisfying answer.
As an application of Rawls to policies, it falls extremely short. I was left with this questions of, ok so what? Great, we have the theory, we have the original position and the veil of ignorance, how do we apply that tangibly? That's what I wanted to know. And I think so say in the afterword that well, the how is not about how we bring this to policies, but rather, how we build momentum, is an unsatisfying answer.
January 6, 2025
John Rawls is known for his political philosophy that it is possible to have both individual freedoms to live life as you wish while also ensuring that the most marginalised in society are better off than in any other system.
Here Daniel Chandler explains Rawls theory of a fair and just economy and then proposes what would need to change to achieve it.
Well laid out I preferred the first half which is explains John Rawls theory well. The second half felt it needed to be several separate books to do justice to the work. Much of it would be challenging conservative and progressives alike as it puts forward a vision for a middle ground that is hard to imagine in todays political
Climate.
Here Daniel Chandler explains Rawls theory of a fair and just economy and then proposes what would need to change to achieve it.
Well laid out I preferred the first half which is explains John Rawls theory well. The second half felt it needed to be several separate books to do justice to the work. Much of it would be challenging conservative and progressives alike as it puts forward a vision for a middle ground that is hard to imagine in todays political
Climate.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews