Hello all:

Hopefully I manage it correctly as I'm sending this to five newsgroups (NG)
and a mailing list through Yahoo as well as to a friend. I don't want to
misuse my computer right now as it's one of the only resources I have, and
things are not fair for either me or my dad. Moreover, John Rawls came up
today in a conversation with someone where I live, a San Jose State graduate
already, and John Rawls talks about social justice in his piece _A Theory of
Justice_ (1971), a chapter of which I read in the anthology _American
Political Thought_ (Davis, 1996). Rawls's introduction goes into "The Role
of Justice" as chapter 1, which the reading includes.

Anyway, Governor Davis's signing of a domestic partner bill contradicts
civil rights. I have decided to vote for his recall when given the
opportunity. Moreover, hopefully California's governor or new governor, if
we get one, will work for justice.

Rawls distinguishes between ideal and partial justice theories in his piece.
Just war theory, he claims, falls within a partial justice rather than ideal
justice framework. On the other hand, he does not think that "the loss of
freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others." "Each
person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare
of society as a whole cannot override... [Justice] does not allow that the
sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages
enjoyed by many." As an apparent liberal thinker he goes on to say

Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are
taken as settled;
the rights secured by justice are not subject to political
bargaining or to the calculus
of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce
in an erroneous
theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is
tolerable only when it
is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice...

I had trouble sharing ideas with the roommate this morning. He had read
Rawls as well for a business class, and he talked about Rawls's "original
position" and how in it, "inequalities of wealth and authority, are just
only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone," and has my
roommate explained but I couldn't, how "the persons in the initial
situation," who are ignorant of their social position, "would chose two
rather different principles: the first requires equality in the assignment
of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic
inequalities, for example inequalities of wealth and authority, are just
only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular
for the least advantaged members of society." In other words, "since
everyone's well-being depends upon a scheme of cooperation without which no
one could have a satisfactory life, the division of advantages should," in
this "original position," "be such to draw forth the willing cooperation of
everyone taking part in it, including those less well situated..."

I had wanted to cite another American political thinker, probably the
fitting Martin Luther King Jr., as I believe I have civil-rights matters not
correctly addressed, including in the signing of this current
domestic-partner bill by Governor Davis. I have been complaining at the
federal level since 1992, and a gay-Episcopal priest does not even fall in a
satisfactory range of support at the moment, basically putting a bit of the
old wool over my eyes (LOL)... However, Rawls's "social justice"and
"justice" hold relevance because "... principles of justice deal with
conflicting claims upon the advantages won by social cooperation..." Rawls
also says that his "original position" assumes "the parties do not know
their conceptions of the good or their special psychological
propensities..." He also argues his original position involves "ideal
justice theory" or "strict compliance" "as opposed to partial compliance
theory..." Partial compliance "studies the principles that govern how we
are to deal with injustice. It comprises such topics as the theory of
punishment, the doctrine of just war, and the justification of various ways
of opposing unjust regimes ranging from civil disobedience and militant
resistance to revolution and rebellion." However, Rawls claims his "ideal
justice" and "strict compliance" theory are more reasonable than "partial
compliance theory," I believe.

Thanks,

Vincent H. Bartning
SJSU Senior, Incorporator, USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation

Check Out the USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation @
http://usakiadowff.org

Check out the USA KIA/DOW Discussion Group @
http://groups.aol.com/usakiadowfamily

"Vincent Henry Bartning" <Bartning@comcast.net> writes:
Hello all: <snip> Rawls's introduction goes into "The Role of Justice" as chapter 1, which the reading includes. Anyway, Governor Davis's signing of a domestic partner bill contradicts civil rights. I have decided to vote for his recall when given the opportunity. Moreover, hopefully California's governor or new governor, if we get one, will work for justice. Rawls distinguishes between ideal and partial justice theories in his piece. Just war theory, he claims, falls within a partial justice rather than ideal justice framework. On the other hand, he does not think that "the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others." <snip> Thanks, Vincent H. Bartning SJSU Senior, Incorporator, USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation

I take it that you will not be going to graduate school. :-)

If you saw the SF Chronicle this morning, there was a discussion of
the bill Davis signed along with articles about the recall-election.
Apparently, if you wanted to, you could arrange for everything the
domestic partnership bill provides on your own, but to do that, you'd
have to draw up a number of legal documents at considerable expense as
your lawyer researches it and covers all the bases. It cited a couple
that had set up such a contract, and the legal fees were significant.

All the bill does is to make this sort of arrangement available at low
cost. Whether you like the bill or not, the bill does not "contradict
civil rights" as you claim. It just saves people the expense of
hiring a lawyer.

"Vincent Henry Bartning" <Bartning@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DHWdnf9U6MrFHfGiU-KYvw@comcast.com... Hello all: Hopefully I manage it correctly as I'm sending this to five newsgroups
(NG) and a mailing list through Yahoo as well as to a friend.

Too bad you can't send an answer to my question as easily.
I don't want to misuse my computer right now

Then don't post. You have one of the lowest signal-to-noise ratios on
Usenet.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.