Justice as Fairness

Sadly, only a minority of DUers - people who proclaim themselves liberal to some degree or another - will apparently recognize the subject of this thread: "Justice as Fairness." Yet it's fundamental to a liberal philosophy and, I would argue, fundamental to any legitimate form of governance that would pretend to call itself democratic.
Nowhere yet have I seen a "discussion" on DU so infested with an ignorance of and opposition to a fundamental tenet of liberalism as the various "discussions" on the draft - and the obscenely self-centered and adolescently petulant positions taken therein. Rather than rationally and civilly discuss the rightness v. wrongness of national service and conscription from an original position, abdicating the me-firstism of a privilege-obsessed conservative and adopting the veil of ignorance of one's own fortunate draw in the sperm lottery, I read posts infused with the tantrums of spoiled brats and their despoilers!

If I were to say I was disappointed, it'd be an intellectually dishonest understatement. Not only does it appear we've learned nothing from the first- and second-hand experiences of the last forty years, it seems to me that we've reverted to a more brutish, amoral, and mutually destructive state, engaging not in adherence to our better natures, but wallowing in the vicious joy of knee-capping the least fortunate - like so many thugs reveling in the vigor of youth and relative affluence preying on those less fortunate. DU seems to have it's own gangaweed constituency.

Allow me to summarize.

There is absolutely nothing inherent in a democracy that guarantees no mistakes or the most beneficial possible short-term outcomes. Democracies make mistakes and democracies fumble. Then again, the saving grace of a democracy is sharing equitably in the fruits of our own governance, be they sweet or sour. We do not opt for an autocracy where the sweetest fruits are reserved for the privileged and the labors of the harvest relegated to the least powerful. We choose to labor equitably and distribute the harvest equitably.

Sometimes those 'fruits' are conflict. War. A democracy gets what it deserves - even in the 'choice' to abdicate sovereignty and abandon the duties of self-governance. When we compound the sour fruits of a poor harvest and revel in the self-righteous effetism of "I told you so" - piling on those bearing the greatest burdens and attacking those who'd argue for lifting the cross from their backs - we become less than worthy of anything resembling justice or fairness.

We labor under the pretense that there is some market relationship between human suffering and money - that we can pay others to perform those national services necessitated by our net collaborative choices. What we've gotten is what we've deserved! That pretense is just as corrupt as those who profit from human suffering in any form, from the arms-traders to the pharmaceutical oligarchs.

There is, I suppose, hope. Over 40% of DUers apparently have the requisite wisdom to comprehend that "well-timed" or "convenient" isn't the test of whether something is right. It's too bad that those who defend their own wrongness are either incapable of or unwilling to pay attention and give due deference to the principles involved - more than adequately sprinkled within the "discussion" but appallingly misrepresented and mischaracterized by the spoiled and the despoilers.

Rock on, DU. :eyes:

:banghead: :banghead:

Some think that justice is something you "get." Justice is something you do.

The same people who think that justice is something that they should get, that they somehow deserve, also think that love is a commodity they should get, that they deserve. The pop-psych self-improvement movement of the 80s and 90s fueled this notion.

When we think about how to "do" justice, we might get a different view than before.

Peace. Also something you do.

The "pursuit of happiness" doesn't refer to a chase - it refers to the activities, imho.

Thanks for the heads up for this one. Will come back later when time is not so limited.

weLL written, and on point.

It certainly is fair to force me to go to Iraq to kill innocent people because a President I did not vote for attacked a country for illegal reasons. Yeah, that's certainly using "Justice as Fairness." Thank God its only a few loons on this message board advocating this position, and it is not the Democratic platform.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If I have to support a draft now to be a Democrat, I think it's time for me to register at Free Republic. Whatever happened to Fuck the Draft?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We need no sacrifice at all. We need to pull out now.

What we have now is far from perfect. In fact almost the polar opposite.
We have two wars raging. Two wars being talked about.
We have a military who has been deployed several times.
They are weary. There are many that have PTSD and are still being sent back. Their families are falling apart at home.
Yet the people in power (whether we elected them or not) do not see that they are suffering. Nor do they care.
They are more than willing to continue to send the same battle-weary soldiers again and again and again...some up to 5 tours so far.
It is time to have a discussion in this country as to how much we will allow our government to destroy these lives who UNSELFISHLY said they would serve their country. Which includes you and me.
They aren't allowed to make decisions as to whether they think this war is rational or just--they are just following orders.
This isn't the time to argue about what happened at Abu Ghraib or other incidents of bad soldiers...it is time to talk about the GOOD people who are being abused.
If we, as a country, cannot force our elected leaders to bring them home by whatever means necessary--protests in the streets, calls, faxes, emails--then we must step up and INSIST (even at our own distaste) that these brave men and women be given the rest that they so deserve.
They shouldn't have to go back.
I don't want ANYONE to go...and that includes you, me, or my children.
But I don't think that we, as Americans, should sit by and watch our military being abused as they are, and not INSIST on a change.

I'm so confused.

Maybe if I read the poll it would be clear what you are talking about. Haven't and so don't.

Are for or against the draft?

... more credit than is due. It seems there are far too many who're eager to let the least-advantaged bear the greatest burdens. I don't personally believe there's any moral legitimacy in creating a 'market' for the risks to life and limb incurred by military service. The myth of 100% 'voluntary' military service is nearly the equivalent of the specious myth that people are homeless by choice. Both myths should be more at-home over at FreeRepublic.

The disdain with which this thread has been treated sure doesn't seem to speak well for the social conscience and liberal ethic of this forum. The way it sank seems to confirm that shit floats.

Are you saying that because of military enlistment standards only the able are serving and that leaves out, say, the homeless who should do their part? Or are you saying that in exchange for liberal freedom there is the obligation for all to serve and therefore a draft is justice?

Some readers may be as confused as I am.

I also don't know how I could say better what Rawls has said so cogently. I took great care in composing the OM, carefully designing a compact and pithy reference to a core philosophy of liberalism - principles so fundamental to liberalism that I don't feel obliged to defend them in a forum like DU where it's part of our social contract as DUers.

*** Please regard the following as inherently supplemental to the OM - and not some standalone rant. ***
(Interpretation of the following cannot be validly claimed outside the context of the OM.)

There are duties inherent in a democracy - the duties of participation in our own self-governance. Even in choosing our representatives, due diligence and oversight is obligatory. One of the sadly necessary (until we can make it unnecessary) duties in a democracy is that of military service.

Unlike political representation, I assert that military service is a non-transferable duty. Why? Because it puts a price on the risks associated with that service - risks of loss of life and limb. I assert that it is neither moral nor just to relegate that to the 'market' of affluence vs. hardship - a market that places a price on the possibility of death or disability and the higher probability of hardship.

There are some who claim we "should not" need a military. While I might agree, delusionally living in that castle in the sky is a sign of psychosis. Until we can make it unnecessary, it's still necessary.

There are some who claim that disagreement with some current deployment of our military should exempt them from participating in that service. While NOBODY can disagree more vehemently with the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan than I, that does NOT morally and ethically permit me to turn my back on those of my fellow citizens who are serving in those theaters and say "Fuck you! I'm not standing by your side!"

This is because I thoroughly agree with the tenets of liberalism and democracy as presented by Rawls. Our social contract must be made irrespective of our own particular draw in the sperm lottery - where we are and what's to our own particular advantage or not. This is far better described by Rawls as the "original position" and incorporates the thought-tool of the "veil of ignorance." A comprehension of this is, I believe, fundamental to a liberal stance.

It took me years to comprehend this and apply it to my life ... but I'm a bit slow. I'd hope that the far more agile minds of DU would grasp it more quickly. I'd hope - but that hope is turning to despair. Far from being some esoteric dorm-room discussion, it is very real and was completely inseperable from my service as a draftee in Viet Nam. To that extent, it applies today every bit as much as it did then.

The reality is that most of us are used to short "sound bites."

I think that we need to think in terms of society, community where we have obligations and enjoy privilege. We often think of our obligations as paying taxes but, of course, fighting on behalf of our country, as long as such a war was declared by our democratically elected representatives, falls into this, too.

It used to be, perhaps until the end of WWII, that young men (mostly) knew that they were going to be drafted - whether there was a war or not. But after Vietnam, and after the elimination of the draft, in most countries, I think - the whole idea of a draft is sudden and distressing.

Perhaps we need to view the draft in the wider context of serving our country, of our obligation to a fair society. JFK talked in terms of volunteering and in his time perhaps this would have been enough.

Under the terms of international law, this war is illegal. Serving soldiers have an obligation to disobey illegal orders - the entire WAR is one big illegal order.

If there were a draft currently, it would be all draftees' obligation to likewise refuse to serve.

I guess I don't understand your argument. You're against the war, yet appear to think we should have more bodies for it. Does not compute.

And where does your stance leave, say, Quakers, or other pacifists/COs?

I also take issue with your assertion that not supporting a draft is a "fuck you' to the troops currently serving. The REAL "fuck you" came from the criminals that forced them to invade in the first place.

What the hell. :shrug:

:eyes:

Great post...one hopes that some will take the time to read past the "Subject Line."

often times justice means it will 'cost' the majority of 'us'-

But, that in the 'long-run' it is still the best, and most 'fair/correct/just' decision or position to take.

I AM a pacifist- I don't believe in using violence and killing to settle a dispute. It hasn't proven very effectual in the history of mankind- Progress and enlightenment should mean not using the same failed methods time and time again, only to have the problems and disputes rear their heads yet again.
"the war to end all wars" will be one of peaceful negotiation.

But to expect others to do what 'we' want done, and not expect to have to bear our share of the burden, is hypocricy.

A draft, I believe, would gut the 'gung-ho' mentality that has allowed us to get into the hell-hole we now stand in, and cannot seem to get out of. It's easy to spend other peoples lives.

Right now I feel like I've just been confronted with all of the truths, in one big intersection. My head is spinning.

The one thing that keeps coming back over and over is division. Those with power are trying to keep their power. And the weakest are being used and abused.

You said it better than I ever could. And again, it feels like we have to change our thinking from "me", to "us".

We're in a war with the powerful. Tonight as I read about the years of genocide in Darfur, I discover that it's about OIL. The poor are being pushed off their own land so the oil companies can come in and do their thing.

We're going to have to work together and use every resource we can muster in order to expose and defuse what is going on here.

This kind of thinking scares people. But it shouldn't. It's how humanity survived through the ages. But in this age of artificial jungles, the imbalance can flourish. It is only through the sharing and dispersal of an amount of effort that we are guaranteed anything. And we are guaranteed war and suffering by letting grow the imbalance of power.

long-winding (60+ words in one sentence) grammatical structure is nearly impossible to comprehend. Your unraveling of Rawls' ideas lends better clarification, but I would posit that the majority of readers "bail out" after feeling less-than-comfortable in grasping the central theme.

If I am correct, the "sinking" of this OM is not due to lack of interest, or the inability to have an intelligent discourse on the draft, but is a direct reflection of the human tendency to not want to look foolish. Your points are valid and developed well, but the forum that you have chosen to deliver this criticism, may hasten you to validate that "shit floats".

... that you'd regard a part of what I write as a "sentence." It should be clear to anyone I'm punctuation-challenged, so when I seen someone generously expressing appreciation, even if only to the point of saying I wrote a sentence, I feel flattered. I've rarely been able to work without a net (write without an editor) unless I labor at great length over the product, particularly when reaching out to the limits of my comprehension and expression to succinctly present some relevant particle of the works of someone like Rawls. Thank you.

I felt it was important enough as a philosophical anchor and directly relevant enough that I tried. I don't know that there's anyone else in the last 100 years who's more adroitly presented comprehensively what it means to be a liberal than Rawls. It most certainly forms the backbone of my perspective of the draft, so I think it should be similarly influential to others who consider themselves liberals.

:smoke:

Either way, I think we've proven you can't spread democracy with the military. Not that this is at all connected to what you said beyond the random tangent my brain just took.

You say "the saving grace of a democracy is sharing equitably in the fruits of our own governance, be they sweet or sour" and "We choose to labor equitably and distribute the harvest equitably".

What you're describing there is fairly nebulous, but communist dictatorship is the system that comes closest to it, not democracy, which emphasises individual liberty. What a democracy should aim to guarantee is a) individual liberty, b) equality of opportunity, c) as fertile an environment as possibly to take those opportunities in, especially at the lower levels (it's more important to make it easy to earn a living that to make it easy to make a million), and d) a safety net for those who's standard of living would otherwise be unnacceptable low. It does *not* have anything whatsoever to do with enforced total equality.



You say "We labor under the pretense that there is some market relationship between human suffering and money - that we can pay others to perform those national services necessitated by our net collaborative choices."

Stating your conclusion as an assumption as a way to remove it from debate, which this is one of the clearest examples of I've seen, annoys me. What you describe as a "pretence" is obviously true. There *is* a market relation between human suffering and money. If they didn't need money, most people wouldn't work at all; as it is, they do the job that they find least onerous that will pay them the money they need. We can, and definately should, "pay others to perform those national services necessitated by our net collaborative choices", except in times of war of survival or massive natural disaster, where there is more work that *has* to be done than volunteers available to do it at an affordable price.

The result of doing so is that a) the jobs are being done by professionals, who can do the work more efficiently and will usually find it less onerous (people tend to choose professions they don't mind as much as others), and b) every one else is doing jobs they have chosen, and can thus do efficiently and find less onerous. Everyone gains, and no-one loses.

You may think that you would be doing the people who would otherwise be earning their living by doing the jobs you'd rather have done by unpaid volunteers a favour by putting them out of business, but I strongly suspect they'd disagree.



I completely agree with your conclusion that most of the argument on one side of the debate is largely ignorant and opposed to a fundamental tenet of liberalism (individual liberty should only be compromised if strictly necessary)...

The thesis is that in the nature of a democracy is governance AND travail, shared fully and equally across the entire population. Otherwise, you have what Jefferson reviled as mob rule: 50.01% telling the other 49.99% that they've been selected to be sacrificed.

As to freedom, note that there are multiple definitions.

One of them says that if our "natural state" is to be free, it's also to be sitting up in a tree somewhere naked, eating our dinner while it's still wriggling.

Another (Maslow's) says that we have the most freedom when our basic needs are guaranteed to us, something that's available unilaterally only to tyrants.

It neither portrays anger towards the infant nor hatred - except in the view of those who find it convenient to attack the motive rather than the principles.

The cult of individualism is very deeply rooted in the American mind and, not coincidentally, routinely becomes attached to the idea of Freedom. In fact, the American fetish of Freedom cannot be fully understood unless it is firmly situated in the context of individualism. That is, American Freedom is best understood as the unfettered right of each individual to do whatever he or she wants. Such a disconnection from any greater social or public good, and thus from any responsibility to anyone other than Self, almost guarantees that the fetishized form of Freedom will express itself as License. And it often does.

Now look at the way advertising has moved from selling value and visions of conformity to branding individuality, rebellion and difference with the subversive as the new cult hero. Look at the ladette/bad girl image in contemporary advertising (dis-)services society today and secondly, whether is it possible to rebel anymore, when rebellion comes in a corporate package.

Some see the enlightened liberal as the ultimate engine of social progress. This concept comports neatly with a kinder gentler capitalism (ouch!) and is thusly promoted in a thousand different ways. Public education and mass advertising being two of the most obvious.

One could make an argument that this is a corporation and not a democracy and start with that as your context.

One could also make the argument that the use of the draft no matter the intent or outcome is furtherance of the National Security Apparatus of The State and ultimately serves to increase the States power and control over our lives.

Put the politicians and lobbyists on the front lines.

The exploitation of those who're most ill-served by both our educational (infotainment) system and economic (coercion) system become the cannon fodder for those of us for whom cynicism has become a defense against the very systems we support. In no moral sense I can think of does this improve political health in a community, nation, or world.

It's been obvious to me for some time that we're seeing the rise of the "corporate state." China is nothing if not that. The U.S. has been on that path for a while but has had further to go, it seems.

but the remedy is not, I think, to further the reach of the military and thusly the state even if it means a more egalitarian force. I simply cannot conceive of a way in which instituting a draft is going to alter our class disparities but I can conceive of ways in which addressing our diseased economic model (capital corporatism of which the military is the most vital component)at it's roots addresses the need for a draft or a standing army for that matter.

To focus on the draft and it's grotesque inequities really doesn't take us to a place where we can clearly see the root causes of our horrifically unjust socio-economic arrangements.

The solution is to slash the US Military budget by 80% and reduce the number of troops by at least 75% while removing all American forces from their positions overseas.

Rangel's point is well intentioned and within the current construct understandable but in the long run it doesn't change the operating systems of the National Security State at all.

The cumulative effect of the lesser evil....

... that the beginning of increasing inequities in this country coincided with the creation of a 'professional' (all 'volunteer') military. When the attraction of military service is increased through systemic economic inequities, that cannot be disregarded as a recruitment motive. Whenever I see two synergistic trends, both of which are undesirable, I see more than mere coincidence. While the draft was active (except for short intervals) from the early 40s to the early 70s, systemic economic disparities decreased. Again, I cannot regard that as mere coincidence.

If there were a draft instituted tomorrow the trend of economic disparity would continue, and will most likely regardless, in much the same fashion. There are numerous other policy factors involved as well as the increasing population and diminishing resources in a capitalist state that depends upon cheap, abundant energy (the US Military being number one consumer of fuel worldwide) to fuel it's endless growth.

During the time period you speak of there were copious amounts of domestic energy supplies which boosted the "growth economy." That changed radically in the early 70's.

In no sense do I assume we have a simple cause/effect relationship between the two. I do believe, however, that an overall prevailing attitude of equity-enhancing policies characterized the post-WW2 years. I see a number of major earth-shifting influences, not the least of which was that military service in WW2 was about 60% draftees (NOT voluntary!) ... throwing people together who'd otherwise never get to know each other let alone come in contact. Urban northerners served with rural southerners. People of diverse religious, ethnic, and economic backgrounds replace their cartoonish notions of on another with real experiences - finding far more in common than in conflict. While I eschew the "melting pot" paradigm, I embrace the "stew" paradigm - where our 'flavor' as individuals is enhanced by cooking together. The WW2 generation prevailed in public policy through the 60s and into the 70s. We had programs from the WW2 GI Bill (education!) through the "War on Poverty." Then... the insidious virus of "welfare Cadillac" contaminated our body politic and we became jealous of our affluence - an affluence that somehow 'felt' even greater when we could think ourselves 'above' those without and could ascribe, not to the generosity of our society but to our own skills and hard work - better than someone else. So, that's part of why I deliberately used the word 'synergistic' ... to portray the common phenomena of a whole range of attitudes and policies and experiences.

of disinfo.

It's actually my chart, based on data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and various credible sources of comparable Gini Ratio data for other countries. I've confronted the fact that most have a difficult time understanding the Gini Ratio, as well as the Lorenz curve of income distribution upon which it's based. Thus, I chose to invert the Y-axis (since most regard 'up' as 'better' in any economic graph) and display a range of values within which the majority of first- and second-world nations' Gini Ratios fall.

If it appears 'dishonest' to you, it sure isn't intended by me.

I'm happy to insult the government, since they are professional chartmakers and propagandists. But I'm assuming information display is not your field and in any case you'd have no motive for obscuring what the data show. So calling it 'dishonest' is completely inappropriate, and I apologise.

I still think Tufte would use it as an example of not getting across the meaning of the data, though, since presumably you want to show rather than, as the government would, hide the fact that inequality is increasing. If you'd labelled the chart "income equality", then it would make sense to invert the y scale as you did, since in fact things are getting worse. But when you label it "inequality", and invert the scale, then the visual impression is that inequality is lessening.

It's very good, even though backward from what you wanted--I knew that inequality is increasing, but I still had to sit there and consciously review the meaning of the scale before I could overcome the strong visual impression it creates. :)

I do understand the argument regarding "increasing inequality" and that's how I maintained it for most of the time I've had it, but there was a repeated apparent confusion about whether things had gotten 'better' or 'worse'. It's tough (for me, at least) to deal with an audience trained to assume that 'up' is better for anything that depicts economics - and my goals is, first and foremost, to communicate with the audience. I'm willing to "stand on my head" to do that.

I'd naively thought originally that one thing would be obvious - that any depiction of racial disparity would make it clear which direction was 'better' and which was 'worse.' It seemed plainly obvious to me that the disparity between whites, blacks, and Hispanics gave a very clear visual orientation ... but I didn't sense the dawning of that comprehension when I'd present this graph.

I'll probably 'flip' it back ... since the presumed gains in comprehension are sure not evident and, thus, there's no good reason to depart from conventional depiction and rigor.


As a side note, I personally try (against the tide, I guess) to emphasize the term 'equity' rather than 'equality' since it's really not at all clear that the ephemeral ideal is really equal incomes. (The title of the chart reflects the Census Bureau's language, which I feel obliged to echo for consistency.) No doubt anyone could argue at length about what degree of inequality ideally refected the disparity of effort vs. ability in the spectrum of individual engagement in our economic activities. That's why I rely on spotting the reference points for other countries ... something most can relate to 'fair' vs. 'unfair.'

They must be training themselves, since there are plenty of econ charts where up is bad--anything to do with cost, for example. The primary message is always visual, and in any chart like that it only says "going up", "getting higher", etc. What "going up" means is a secondary interpretation, and whether it's good or bad is tertiary.

I've often considered working up a multi-layer Gini chart that interprets the concentration number, so instead of the scale opaquely running from 0.0 to 1.0, for income it would run from "one person gets all income" to "everyone gets same amount of income". Another layer would identify who's getting drained to feed the concentration at the top, probably using a changing tint of color to reflect the change in concentration over time, with the poor's tint fading while the wealthy's thickens. Ideally it would also show the magnitude of concentration, so that it's evident how many people are being impoverished to feed the greed of the hyper-wealthy. The straight Gini chart doesn't really do that, since it's linear and concentration is non-. It would be very nice to add another layer yet, identifying the practical implications at quintile granularity, such as "minimum-wage worker becomes homeless" "top 0.005 of population have more income than Chile", "middle-income family can no longer afford a house", etc. There's a lot that can be done with charts. It's a pity that they're usually so sterile.

"It's been obvious to me for some time that we're seeing the rise of the "corporate state." China is nothing if not that."

Absolved of individual power, and trained to believe the pencil pushers at the top who "know better" and hold sway over our livelihood, we are trained through this corporate structure to obey and keep the rewards (paycheck, cable TV, health benefits... whatever it is that keeps you at your task) coming. It denies individual responsibility except on the most basic level of participation. Dollars control politics and your individual free-market worth is negligible. Your freedom is relegated to an ideal, marketed to you by the corporation that owns you.

The idea of serving your country is based on "we the people" controlling that government. This means PARTICIPATION. If the government is no good... toss their ass out.

Firing up the draft while we are fighting an illegal, immoral war just adds more death to the mix.

Cut off additional war funding, bring the soldiers home, and then we can talk.

They are the result of failures in the "body politic" (the electorate - ALL of us) and are then also most justly borne equitably across that "body politic" - as long as that electorate does not make the requisite corrections. Again, whether the democratic nation is on the "right path" or "wrong path," it's still a path chosen or accepted by that nation. I don't see the electorate rising in rebellion or even in massive protest. The 'calculus' of hiding while our neighbors bear the burdens is cowardice, not democracy.

I hear all sorts of proposals about ending the war and cutting off funding ... but that does not (yet) eradicate the reality of the few bearing the burden of the failures of the many. There's not a damned thing that says we shouldn't do BOTH. It's not an "either/or" - imho, we have a moral duty to do BOTH.

Are you currently rioting?

I reject your premise. It's unrealistic.

:eyes:

Even from the original position, I think that conscription is still wrong. I guess that makes me a spoiled brat. :shrug:

One is the obvious (and oblivious) rehash of the me-firstism ideology that props up and justifies the inherent inequalities created within capitalist economies. Those arguments don't get the point of democracy at all, or "justice as fairness,"

But there are also disagreements based on the fact that this war in particular (like many more before it) was not "of, by, and for the people." Your assertion that the draft is the proper way to assign the costs of war in a democracy presumes that this is a democracy and the decision to invade other countries reflects the will of the people.

But this is not a democracy. True, we have some of the trappings of a democracy -- we get to vote and pick representatives, and a lot of times we get some good ones. But this is a plutocracy, or more precisely, a corporatocracy. Most representatives (enough) are funded to the extent that they serve Big Money. And there are limits to what our representatives can do, as today's date should remind us.

Fairness under these conditions would mean that those who decide for war, and members of that class, would be the ones sent to fight. By random selection, or a draft, to keep it fair. But sending off us proles in their place is no more just than slavery,

First of all, Rawls speaks of liberalism, not some pure ideal if democracy. The liberal stance is that the few will not be victimized by the many. The Bill of Rights reflects the liberal principles imposed upon the "Constitutional republic" or "representative democracy" the Founders envisioned.

Absolutely nobody should be distracted by the claims that "since it's not ideal, I won't behave in a way that makes it ideal." This is, after all "DemocraticUnderground" where "progressives" (the term folks use that run away from being called "liberal" by those mean conservatives) discuss politics ... and (hopefully) principled approaches to political problems.

I reject the 'logic' that says it's OK to reject liberal principles as long as we're not a liberal democracy anyway. If we do that, we can guarantee it'll never be any closer to being one. That's nihilistic - self-destructive and petulant - the kind of argument a prepubescent would make when told to behave. ("Make Suzy behave first!" "This isn't a family! It's a dictatorship!")

Everything you note, to the degree it's real and not hyperbole, is a problem that must be addressed. But there's absolutely no virtue in claiming that one problem exonerates use from dealing with other problems in liberally-principled ways.

It is that what Rawls is concerned about, "that the few will not be victimized by the many," is the exact opposite of what is real, here and now. I understand your point, and agree that putting the burden of imperialist wars of aggression on the most vulnerable rather than the more privileged is unjust, to put it mildly.

I believe there are two societies here, not one. The one that wanted to establish geopolitical hegemony in the Middle East was not the one you and I live in, and NONE of us should be obligated to serve them in their goals.

If you believe, as you seem to argue, that we are one society, then a draft of "all of us" would be fair and just, as you say. I say, by contrast, that the group that chose war was not "us," but "them," and it is only fair and just that THEY pay the price of their decision. Putting that price on US is neither fair nor just.

Agreed. But consider the pragmatics:

(1) as long as it's someone else's ox being gored, the ruling class is safe. As you point out, we are not living in a democracy at this point. But we are living in a nominal democracy, where, as Chomsky points out, public opinion must be manipulated; it cannot be safely ignored. Given all the distractions the ruling class has at its disposal, how do we mobilize that public opinion except by demanding that the pain be shared across the whole population?

(2) some of us are being obligated (by eliminating other options) to serve them in their goals. Do we limit ourselves to paying lip service to their plight ...because, after all, they're not "us" in any way we care about?