The Rawlsian Framework is an extremely liberal political theory based on the ideals of collectivism. This “moral” theory is meant by some to be a guide for the creation of law. An earlier reading expressed an opinion that people with Marxist leanings often find themselves in the employment of planning as a way to implement their belief system on a society. (Beatley) This liberal approach to Growth Management is an effective way to aid the disadvantaged and limit the power of the bourgeoisie under the guise of fairness and populism.
To be sure there is an appeal to economic fairness in the Rawlsian Framework. Beatly advocates a view of a society not comprised of individuals but a collection of people in a mutual and shared endeavor. This is supposed to cause an equal distribution of the good and bad of life. Beatly goes so far as to question why the naturally advantaged by means of skill and dedication should received a greater distribution of benefits. This is a morally arbitrary and is essentially undeserved according to our writer!
When these ideas are put into planning the ideas of equal distribution corrupts the technical aspects of planning and planning takes on the role of social judge. Imagine trying to implement fairness in life whilst plotting roads and allocating space for commercial development. Social Judges planners are not.
I take personal offence that we are to be denied the fruit of our efforts if those fruits do not benefit society as a whole. The following passage from our text illustrates the most poisonous idea of justice and illustrates how deep into socialism Rawls had descended.
“Thus for Rawls the primary task of moral theory is to determine the appropriate standards of justice for governing their cooperative social arrangement and its resultant distribution of benefits and burdens” (Beatley)
This idea of “social justice” and cooperation is in direct contrast to the Anglo-Saxon and Judeo-Christian work ethic on which the United States was founded. This sort of thinking leads to wondering who is the least advantaged and how do we chose them? Who is making too much, has too much and how much should the government take to even the score of life? This is the heart and soul of Socialism. All one would need to do would be to look at the cities of the former Soviet Union and North Korea to understand where these theories lead. Their cities are Spartan and cleaned of references to faith and religion. The desolate cities and towns of those two nations are considered to be among the dreariest in the world.
One other aspect of this cannot be ignored. In Rawls “two principles of justice” Rawls arranges legal principles in serial order. The most striking thought is the thought that “equality under the law” is dead last. (Beatley) This sacred idea is behind such common things as discussion and formal democratic liberties. I put it that equality under the law is a primary, fundamental and basic right and most special privilege.
The principles in our text our principles I will try to avoid in my professional career. One should always hold a place for the disadvantaged. There is a always a place in the city for the disadvantaged. These principles however, are not based on morality, they are based on humanism .
In this nation, any increase in wealth or benefit should always go to the most hardworking and dedicated. In the frame of Urban Planning, We must accept that our central business districts comprise our most dedicated members of society who hold the keys to our economic vitality. CBD’s deserve before other sections of a city the most progressive and innovated forms of infill and reurbanization. The most impoverished districts of most American cities look as awful because of the laissez faire attitude of their residents and the crime those residents commit. No, our hardest working do deserve the best laid Plans of mice and men.
Now I know why Rawls and his wife spent their first holiday writing an index for Nietzsche. (Friedrich Nietzsche)
A reflection on Rawlsian (Socialist) Framework
