Rawls, I think, would critique your stance by saying that it relies on you having your dependable good sense, but that no one is the last arbiter of what is best in our world, and no one ought to be, lest we degrade the liberal order as he described. What would be your reply?
It’s a good question. My response would be that yes, the liberal order he casts as an ideal, and that he is convinced is the arrangement we would all agree to from the original position, precludes even the gentlest guiding hand from the state towards what is for the good. He is consistent, to be sure.
But, with respect, I do not agree with him, nor do I think I would be entirely alone in allowing for states, over time and through practice, a small-c conservatism that allows the state to take some actions in promoting excellence in the arts and sciences even when not everybody fully understands their value. I do not understand all that happens in the upper levels of my university mathematics department, but I am happy to give my support to it.
In the 80's when we, and our daughter, were young we were not making much money and
were saving for a house. There was little for extras, but we lived in Montreal where there was
art on the streets and in museums and galleries, for a small or no fee. Place des Arts had a
Saturday program Brioche et Son, where children learned about the instruments in the
orchestra. We had Mount Royal to explore and play in, a neighbourhood children's pool where
water spouted out of a lion's mouth, and community ice rinks in the winter. We had the library,
free concerts at the universities and cheap travel on the subway to all the above and Montreal
Botanical Gardens and Agrignon Park. We didn't have a cottage to retreat to in the summer or
the wherewithal to fly to far flung places. We were poor, but we never felt poor.
I have worked in public and private schools. Private schools make sure their students have
access to the arts. Thanks to public funding for the arts all children have access to them.
It's too bad that the arts have this elitist association when there is a so much workmanlike
labour that goes into producing them and of what inspires them is drawn up out
of the world we are living in every day.
The movie theaters, delicatessens, Ogilvie's Christmas window, street life (the strong man who
pulled the buses on St. Catherine St.) were also great fun.
Rawls, I think, would critique your stance by saying that it relies on you having your dependable good sense, but that no one is the last arbiter of what is best in our world, and no one ought to be, lest we degrade the liberal order as he described. What would be your reply?
It’s a good question. My response would be that yes, the liberal order he casts as an ideal, and that he is convinced is the arrangement we would all agree to from the original position, precludes even the gentlest guiding hand from the state towards what is for the good. He is consistent, to be sure.
But, with respect, I do not agree with him, nor do I think I would be entirely alone in allowing for states, over time and through practice, a small-c conservatism that allows the state to take some actions in promoting excellence in the arts and sciences even when not everybody fully understands their value. I do not understand all that happens in the upper levels of my university mathematics department, but I am happy to give my support to it.