<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> jks writes: > You have to be procedurally correct too, and in fast, procedural correctness trumps [being right]. But doesn't that mean that something that is procedurally correct, but results in persecution (as in the case of anti-same-sex marriage amendments) is possible under Rawlsian notions of liberal democracy? * * * * What do you want, a guarantee that nothing can go wrong? Rawls calls his approach imperfect procedural justice -- because we know that the outcomes will not always be ideal. The best you can have in advance is to have fair procedures for resolving disagreements about important things on which people who may otherwise deeply disagree on fundamentals can agree. What alternative do you suggest to fair procedure? Which includes protections for rights, btw, but as we see, in times of stress, these are not ironclad. However, what is? jks</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/aac/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/ease.html">Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete</a> - You start. We finish.