What is Bertram's point? I thought it was obvious from the post.
That the rich can buy their own laws, and can in fact buy the laws in such a way that they never have to pay again. Including constitutional changes, or simply stacking the Supreme Court.
In that case, social justice and law no longer match, and redistribution will have to occur extra-legally.
The post is sufficiently evasive that I am not sure that that is the point he wants to make. He, as I said, confuses me.
But you may be right: the underlying point may be that we neo-Rawlsians cannot win by the ballot, and so we must use the bullet instead.
If so. I reject that.
I reject that utterly. I reject that completely. I reject that totally.
For those of us who actually think about the history of the twentieth century--for those of us for whom the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly was our Kronstadt--the clear lesson is that bullets can (and sometimes should) be used to back ballots, but never to override them.
The means shape the ends.