["traditions\t and\t understandings\u2019\t or\t \u2018the\t values\t implicit\t in\t their\t culture\u2019s\t social practices\u2019.\t Here\t we\t approach\t very\t difficult\t issues\t in\t meta-moral\t philosophy. (\u2018Substantive\tmoral\tphilosophy\u2019\tis\tto\tdo\twith\twhat\tis\tright\tand\twhat\twrong.\t\u2018Meta- moral\tphilosophy\u2019\t\u2013\talso\tknown\tas\t\u2018meta-ethics\u2019\t\u2013\tis\tto\tdo\twith\tthe\tstatus\tof\tmoral judgements,\twhat\twe\tmean\twhen\twe\tsay\tthat\tsomething\tis\tright\tor\twrong,\tand\thow we\tknow\twhich\tit\tis.)\tHappily,\tit\u2019s\tnot\tappropriate\tfor\tme\tto\tgo\tinto\tthem\there.\tWhat is\t worth\t noting\t is\t that\t communitarianism,\t in\t both\t its\t philosophical\t and\t its co mmunitar ian\t g uises,\t so metimes\t asser ts\t that\t the\t justificatio n\t o f\t a\t mo r al\t value\t o r principle\t consists,\t and\t can\t only\t consist,\t in\t appeal\t to\t the\t shared\t intuitions\t of\t the community\tto\twhom\tthe\tvalue\tor\tprinciple\tin\tquestion\tis\tto\tbe\tjustified.\tAdd\tto\tthis the\tthought\tthat\tdifferent\tcommunities\tshare\tquite\tdifferent\tintuitions,\tand\tthe\tresult is\t a\t kind\t of\t social\t or\t cultural\t moral\t relativism.\t This\t is\t why\t some\t object\t to communitarian\t thinking\t because\t they\t take\t it\t to\t imply\t a\t kind\t of\t conservatism,\t a rejection\tof\tthe\tpossibility\tof\ta\trole\tfor\tpolitical\tphilosophy\tthat\tis\tradically\tcritical. We\t have\t to\t be\t car eful\t her e.\t Even\t communitar ians\t like\t Walzer \t think\t that\t ther e\t is\t a \u2018universal\u2019\t thin\t kind\t of\t morality\t that\t is\t shared\t by\t all,\t or\t nearly\t all,\t cultures.\t And Walzer \u2019s\town\tprescriptions\tfor\tthe\tUS,\tbased\ton\this\tinterpretation\tof\ttheir\t\u2018shared meaning s\u2019,\t cer tainly\t qualify\t as\t \u2018r adical\t so cial\t cr iticism\u2019.\t But,\t o ver all,\t this\t kind\t of relativism\tis\tmore\tusually\tassociated\twith\tcommunitarians\tthan\twith\tliberals.","Objection\t5:\tLiberals\tneglect\tthe\tway\tin\twhich\tindividuals\tare\tsocially constituted Much\t philosophical\t communitarianism\t focuses\t on\t the\t conception\t of\t person supposed\t to\t lie\t at\t the\t heart\t of\t liberalism.\t Encouraged\t in\t their\t suspicions\t by\t the shadowy,\t desocialized\t parties\t to\t the\t contract\t in\t Rawls\u2019s\t original\t position,\t critics claim\t that\t liberals\t fail\t to\t recognize\t the\t extent\t to\t which\t individuals\t are\t \u2018socially constituted\u2019,\tembedded\tin\tcommunal\trelations\tand\tformed\tas\tthe\tpeople\tthey\tare\tby the\t co mmunities\t in\t which\t they\t live.\t The\t liber al\t co nceptio n\t o f\t the\t per so n\t as\t a\t fr ee chooser\t of\t how\t to\t live\t her\t life\t is\t naively\t \u2018individualistic\u2019.\t It\t overlooks\t the individual\u2019s\tdependence\ton\tthe\tsociety\tin\twhich\tshe\tlives\tfor\ther\tconception\tof\tthe good\t (and,\t indeed,\t for\t her\t conception\t of\t herself\t as\t an\t individual\t choosing\t a conception\t of\t the\t good).\t Sometimes\t this\t dependence\t \u2013\t the\t priority\t of\t the\t social matr ix\t \u2013\t is\t pr esented\t as\t an\t empir ical\t claim\t abo ut\t the\t sig nificance\t o f\t so cializatio n pr o cesses\t fo r \t the\t individual\u2019s\t self-identity.\t So metimes\t it\t is\t the\t mo r e\t philo so phical idea\tthat\tlanguage\tor\tthought\tis\timpossible\toutside\ta\tsocial\tsetting. Either\tway,\tthe\tcritique\tis\tmisguided.\tLiberals\tmay\tmake\tmistakes,\tbut\tthey\tdon\u2019t make\t mistakes\t as\t obvious\t as\t these.\t How\t could\t anybody\t deny\t that\t people\t derive their\t self-understandings\t from\t the\t societies\t in\t which\t they\t live?\t What\t matters\t is whether\t this\t does\t anything\t to\t knock\t the\t liberal\t insistence\t on\t the\t importance\t of people\t being\t free\t to\t think\t about\t how\t they\t want\t to\t live,\t to\t live\t the\t life\t of\t their choice,\t and\t to\t change\t their\t mind\t (subject,\t of\t course,\t to\t the\t constraint\t that\t they r espect\t o ther \t peo ple\u2019s\t do ing \t the\t same).\t If\t peo ple\t had\t no \t cho ice,\t if\t the\t feeling \t that we\t decide\t how\t to\t live\t our\t lives\t were\t an\t illusion,\t then\t this\t would\t indeed\t be\t a problem.\tLiberals\twould\tbe\tattributing\thuge\timportance\tto\ta\tcapacity\tthat\tpeople\tdo not\t in\t fact\t possess.\t But\t the\t fact\t that\t we\t choose\t from\t a\t set\t of\t socially\t defined options,\t and\t that,\t as\t individuals,\t we\t are\t undoubtedly\t subject\t to\t social\t influences (family,\t school,\t media)\t that\t lead\t us\t to\t choose\t some\t rather\t than\t others,\t does\t not establish\t that\t reflection\t and\t choice\t are\t illusory.\t To\t be\t sure,\t when\t we\t critically reflect\t upon\t our\t lives,\t we\t do\t so\t while\t taking\t some\t things\t as\t given.\t Detaching ourselves\t from\t all\t our\t values\t would\t leave\t us\t with\t no\t basis\t for\t judgement.\t But\t it still\t matters\t that\t people\t are\t free\t to\t live\t a\t life\t they\t believe\t in,\t rather\t than\t being required\tto\tlive\ta\tlife\tthat\tothers\tchoose\tfor\tthem. The\t fact\t that\t individuals\t are\t socially\t constituted\t does\t indeed\t pose\t challenges\t to the\t liberal.\t If\t people\t derive\t their\t understanding\t of\t who\t they\t are\t from\t their membership\t of\t particular\t groups,\t and\t if\t such\t self-understandings\t are\t integral\t to their\t well-being,\t then\t those\t concerned\t with\t individual\t well-being\t may\t find themselves\t caring\t about\t groups\t in\t ways\t that\t generate\t potential\t conflicts\t with individual\t freedom\t and\t with\t a\t strictly\t individualistic\t approach\t to\t justice.\t Perhaps some\tcultural\tgroups\trequire\tsubsidy\tif\tthey\tare\tto\tsurvive?\tPerhaps\ttheir\tsurvival","depends\ton\ttheir\tbeing\tgranted\tgroup\trights\tthat\tclash\twith\tconventional\tindividual r ig hts?\t We\t will\t discuss\t such\t issues\t sho r tly.\t Her e\t the\t po int\t is\t just\t to \t clear \t away\t the mistaken\tidea\tthat\tliberals\tsimply\tfail\tto\tacknowledge\tthe\tsocial\tconstitution\tof\tthe self. Indeed,\t it\u2019s\t precisely\t because\t they\t do\t recognize\t the\t extent\t to\t which\t the\t social matrix\t constitutes\t people\u2019s\t identities\t that\t liberals\t are\t likely\t to\t care\t about\t the conditions\t under\t which\t beliefs\t are\t formed.\t Here\t there\t may\t well\t be\t a\t conflict between\t \u2018liberal\t individualism\u2019\t and\t \u2018community\u2019.\t Consider\t the\t devoutly\t religious. Suppo se\t they\t pr o po se\t to \t r aise\t their \t childr en\t in\t a\t clo se-knit\t co mmunity,\t send\t them to\treligious\tschools\tand\tgenerally\tmake\tsure\tthat\tthey\tare\tkept\taway\tfrom\tthose\tof different\tpersuasions.\tCan\tthe\tstate\tpermit\tthis?\tFor\tthe\tliberal,\tthe\tissue\tis\twhether doing\t so\t adequately\t respects\t citizens\u2019\t capacity\t for\t autonomy.\t Liberals\t differ\t on what\t this\t implies.\t For\t some\t it\t is\t sufficient\t that\t people\t have\t the\t right\t to\t leave\t the community\tin\twhich\tthey\twere\traised.\tFor\tothers,\tthis\tis\tnot\tenough.\tThe\tstate\tmust ensure\t that\t its\t future\t citizens\t have\t exercised\t their\t capacity\t for\t autonomy\t and\t this requires\tthat\tthey\tshould\tnot\tjust\tbe\teducated\tinto\t(indoctrinated\twith?)\ta\tparticular religious\t view,\t but\t should\t be\t taught\t to\t think\t for\t themselves,\t and\t to\t have\t some awareness\t of\t the\t range\t of\t options\t available\t to\t them\t (including\t being\t taught\t their civil\t r ig hts).\t Quite\t ho w\t much\t state\t inter ventio n\t this\t invo lves\t is\t a\t difficult\t questio n on\twhich\tliberals\tdisagree.\tThere\tare\tmany\tbooks\t\u2013\tand\tUS\tSupreme\tCourt\tcases\t\u2013 about\tit.\tIn\tgeneral\tterms,\tthe\tproblem\tis\tthat\tof\tgetting\tthe\tcorrect\tbalance\tbetween respecting\t the\t autonomy\t of\t parents\t (whose\t conception\t of\t the\t good\t may\t include raising\t their\t children\t a\t certain\t way)\t and\t protecting\t or\t nurturing\t the\t autonomy\t of children.\t The\t communitarian\t twist\t is\t that\t respecting\t the\t autonomy\t of\t parents\t may present\titself\tas\trespecting\ta\t\u2018community\u2019\t(here\ta\treligious\tgrouping).\t(To\tsee\tthat it\tdoesn\u2019t\thave\tto\tpresent\titself\tin\tthis\tway,\timagine\teccentric\tparents\twho\trefuse\tto allow\ttheir\tchildren\tto\thave\ta\tnormal\teducation\tbecause\tthey\twant\tthem\tto\tbe\tsocial isolates.\tHere\tthere\tis\tno\t\u2018community\u2019\tthat\twould\tbe\toffended\tby\tthe\tstate\u2019s\tdecision to\t require\t those\t children\t to\t learn\t things\t their\t parents\t didn\u2019t\t want\t them\t to.\t So\t the issue\tof\twhat\tthe\tstate\tshould\tdo\tto\tguarantee\tthe\tautonomy\tof\tits\t(future)\tcitizens\tis o nly\t co nting ently\t r elated\t to \t the\t questio n\t o f\t r especting \t \u2018co mmunity\u2019.)\t Whatever \t the right\t answer\t in\t these\t cases,\t it\t should\t be\t clear\t that\t liberal\t concerns\t about socialization\tand\teducation\tarise\tprecisely\tbecause\tthey\tdo\tindeed\tacknowledge\tthe priority\tof\tthe\tsocial\tmatrix.","Objection\t6:\tLiberals\tfail\tto\tsee\tthe\tsignificance\tof\tcommunal\trelations, shared\tvalues\tand\ta\tcommon\tidentity Communitarian\tworries\tabout\tthe\tliberal\tconception\tof\tthe\tperson\tsometimes\ttake\ta different\ttack.\tRather\tthan\tobjecting\tto\tliberalism\u2019s\tsupposed\tview\tabout\tthe\tsource of\t people\u2019s\t conceptions\t of\t the\t good,\t they\t complain\t about\t the\t particular\t kinds\t of co ntent\t which\t liber alism\t alleg edly\t ig no r es\t and\t enco ur ag es.\t Her e\t the\t char g e\t is\t that liberalism\t builds\t upon\t and\t fosters\t a\t particular\t understanding\t of\t the\t individual\u2019s relation\t to\t her\t community,\t seeing\t society\t as\t nothing\t more\t than\t a\t cooperative venture\t for\t the\t pursuit\t of\t individual\t advantage.\t Conceptions\t of\t the\t good\t that\t are communal\tin\tcontent,\tthat\trecognize\tthat\tsocial\tbonds\tand\trelations\twith\tothers\tare intrinsically\tvaluable,\tare\tthereby\tdowngraded.\tLiberals\tare\talso\taccused\tof\tfailing to\tgive\tproper\tattention\tto\tshared\tvalues\tand\tthe\timportance\tof\ta\tcommon\tidentity. Contrary\t to\t this\t objection,\t there\t are\t two\t compatible\t ways\t in\t which\t liberals\t can accommodate\t the\t thought\t that\t communal\t relations\t are\t intrinsically\t valuable.\t The first\trequires\tus\tto\tremember\tthat\tliberalism\tis\ta\tdoctrine\tabout\twhat\tthe\tstate\tcan\tdo to,\t and\t for,\t its\t citizens.\t Since\t the\t state,\t in\t liberal\t theory,\t is\t essentially\t a\t means whereby\tfree\tand\tequal\tcitizens\tmake\tand\thelp\teach\tother\tdo\tthings,\tthis\tamounts\tto saying\tthat\tit\tis\ta\tdoctrine\tabout\thow\tpeople\tshould\ttreat\tone\tanother\tas\tcitizens.\tIt\tis not\ta\tdoctrine\tabout\thow\tpeople\tshould\ttreat\tone\tanother\tin\tgeneral,\tin\ttheir\tprivate lives,\t or\t as\t members\t of\t civil\t society\t (except\t where\t a\t way\t of\t treating\t another\t is inconsistent\twith\tor\tundermines\tthat\tother \u2019s\tstanding\tas\ta\tfree\tand\tequal\tcitizen).\tSo even\t if\t it\t were\t true\t that\t liberal\t individualism\t conceived\t political\t activity\t and\t the state\t in\t pur ely\t instr umental\t ter ms,\t this\t wo uld\t still\t leave\t plenty\t o f\t r o o m\t fo r \t peo ple to\t pursue\t communal\t values.\t The\t state\t provides\t a\t framework\t within\t which\t people live\t their \t lives.\t Those\t lives\t may\t centr ally\t involve\t distinctively\t co mmunal\t activity, participation\tin\tshared\tpractices\tand\tvalued\tmembership\tof\tparticular\tcommunities. A\t \u2018liber al\t individualist\u2019\t do es\t no t\t think\t that\t the\t state\t sho uld\t pr event\t peo ple\t living \t a r elig io us\t life,\t a\t life\t in\t an\t ar tistic\t co mmune,\t a\t life\t devo ted\t to \t the\t co llective\t pur suit of\t scientific\t tr uth,\t o r \t a\t life\t in\t which\t the\t extended\t family\t plays\t a\t cr ucial\t r o le.\t Nor does\tshe\tdeny\tthat\tany\tof\tthese\tare\tvaluable\tways\tto\tlive\ta\tlife\t\u2013\tmore\tvaluable\tthan the\tself-interested\tpursuit\tof\tmoney\tor\tindividual\tgratification.\tShe\tis\tconcerned\tto ensur e\t that\t citizens\t ar e\t fr ee\t to \t live\t lives\t they\t believe\t in.\t T ho se\t lives\t may\t per fectly well\t be\t communal\t in\t content,\t involving\t membership\t of\t groups\t or\t associations aiming\tat\tshared\tends. But\t this\t picture\t of\t the\t liberal\t state\t as\t providing\t a\t framework\t within\t which individuals\tare\tfree\tto\tpursue\tcommunal\tconceptions\tof\tthe\tgood\tis\tonly\tpart\tof\tthe story.\t For\t liberals\t need\t not\t conceive\t political\t activity\t or\t the\t state\t in\t purely individualistic\tinstrumental\tterms.\tRather,\tthe\tliberal\tstate\titself\tmight\tbe\tthought\tto represent\tor\tembody\ta\tparticular\tunderstanding\tof\tpolitical\tcommunity.\tCitizens\tof","a\tliberal\tstate\tshare\ta\tcommon\taim,\tand\tare\tjointly\tengaged\tin\tits\tpursuit.\tThe\taim\tis that\t of\t creating\t and\t sustaining\t a\t set\t of\t social\t and\t political\t institutions\t that\t treats citizens\t justly.\t Communitarians\t who\t accuse\t liberals\t of\t neglecting\t the\t idea\t of\t the common\tgood\tmiss\tthe\tpoint\tthat\tliberal\tjustice\tcan\titself\tbe\ta\tcommon\tgood.\tIt\tis\ta common\tgood\twhen\tit\tis\tshared\tby\tcitizens\tand\tpursued\tby\tthem\ttogether.\tCombine this\t with\t the\t previous\t point,\t and\t we\t have\t a\t conception\t of\t the\t liberal\t state\t as\t a community\tof\tcommunities.\tAn\toverarching\tcommunity,\tfounded\tupon\trespect\tfor the\tindividual,\twhich\tallows\tits\tcitizens\tto\tengage\tin\tcommunal\t(religious,\tartistic, familial)\tactivity\tin\tpursuit\tof\tthe\tmore\tparticular\tends\tthat\tthey\tshare\twith\tothers. Tr ue,\t ther e\t is\t so mething \t par ado xical\t abo ut\t this\t idea.\t The\t co ntent\t o f\t the\t g o o d\t is communal\t in\t the\t sense\t that\t it\t is\t something\t held\t in\t common\t by\t citizens.\t Its\t being held\tin\tcommon\tis\tintegral\tto\tthat\tcontent.\tA\tsociety\tin\twhich\tsome\tcitizens\tdid\tnot share\t the\t goal\t of\t sustaining\t a\t just\t society,\t but\t had\t that\t goal\t forced\t upon\t them against\t their \t will,\t wo uld\t be\t a\t so ciety\t in\t which\t the\t g o od\t was\t not\t achieved.\t But\t the content\t of\t the\t good\t is\t \u2018individualistic\u2019,\t in\t that\t it\t concerns\t the\t importance\t of respecting\t the\t rights\t of\t individuals\t to\t pursue\t the\t life\t of\t their\t choice,\t with\t a\t just share\t of\t resources\t to\t devote\t to\t their\t individual,\t freely\t chosen,\t life-plan.\t The common\t good\t is\t individualism\t (where\t that\t means\t \u2018respect\t for\t the\t freedom\t and autonomy\tof\tall\tindividuals\u2019,\tnot\t\u2018the\tselfish\tpursuit\tof\tone\u2019s\town\tgratification\u2019). Some\t variants\t of\t communitarianism\t hanker\t after\t a\t conception\t of\t the\t common good\t that\t is\t thicker\t or\t stronger\t than\t this,\t one\t that\t is\t more\t communal\t and\t less individualistic.\t But\t we\t have\t seen\t that\t liberals\t permit\t individuals\t to\t pursue communal\tconceptions\tof\tthe\tgood\twithin\tthe\tframework\tof\tjustice\tprovided\tby\tthe state.\t So ,\t if\t ther e\t is\t to \t be\t any\t r eal\t disag r eement,\t co mmunitar ians\t must\t be\t ar g uing that\tthe\tstate\tcan\titself\tembody\t\u2013\tact\tin\tpursuit\tof\t\u2013\tvalues\tthat\tgo\tbeyond\trespect\tfor the\t freedom\t and\t autonomy\t of\t all\t individuals.\t For\t some\t liberals,\t however,\t it\t is\t a crucial\tfeature\tof\tcontemporary\tWestern\tsocieties\tthat\tcitizens\tdisagree\tabout\twhich particular\t ways\t of\t life\t are\t valuable,\t with\t a\t range\t of\t different\t views\t seeming\t no more\tor\tless\treasonable\tthan\tone\tanother. In\t Rawls\u2019s\t terminology,\t developed\t in\t his\t second\t book,\t Political\t Liberalism (1993),\tsuch\tsocieties\tare\tcharacterized\tby\t\u2018the\tfact\tof\treasonable\tpluralism\u2019.\tGiven this,\tand\tassuming\tthat\tthe\tcoercive\tpower\tof\tthe\tstate\tis\tjointly\theld\tby\tall\tcitizens equally,\t it\t seems\t illegitimate\t for\t some\t to\t get\t the\t state\t to\t favour\t their\t own co nceptio ns\t o f\t what\t is\t valuable.\t That\t is,\t to \t make\t the\t state\t sectar ian,\t no t\t a\t to o l\t fo r the\t execution\t of\t a\t genuinely\t communal\t project.\t To\t be\t the\t latter,\t the\t state\t must r estr ict\t itself\t to \t the\t pur suit\t o f\t tho se\t values\t that\t ar e\t indeed\t shar ed\t by\t all.\t These\t ar e liberal\t values\t such\t as\t freedom,\t equality,\t autonomy\t and\t justice.\t Understood\t in\t this way,\t the\t liber al\t who \t r eco g nizes\t what\t citizens\t do \t and\t do \t no t\t shar e,\t and\t per mits\t the state\t to\t act\t only\t in\t ways\t that\t can\t be\t justified\t by\t appeal\t to\t common\t ground,\t is sho wing \t mo r e\t r espect\t fo r \t the\t po litical\t co mmunity\t as\t it\t actually\t is\t than\t the\t kind\t o f","communitarian\twho\tadvocates\ta\tthicker\tconception\tof\tpolitical\tcommunity.\tLeaving people\t free\t to\t choose\t for\t themselves\t how\t they\t are\t to\t live\t is\t the\t expression\t of political\t community\t appropriate\t to\t contemporary\t circumstances.\t (The\t claim\t that such\t values\t ar e\t indeed\t \u2018co mmo n\t g r o und\u2019\t is,\t o f\t co ur se,\t pr o blematic.\t I\t will\t discuss the\tproblems\twith\tthis\tapproach\tlater.) In\t their\t private\t lives,\t people\t may\t define\t themselves\t in\t all\t kinds\t of\t ways\t \u2013 heterosexual,\t Christian,\t artist,\t sport-lover\t \u2013\t but,\t as\t members\t of\t the\t political community,\t they\t coincide\t in\t regarding\t themselves\t as\t free\t and\t equal\t citizens.\t It\t is this\t common\t identity\t that\t is\t modelled\t by\t Rawls\u2019s\t original\t position.\t So\t when\t real peo ple\t r eg ar d\t the\t claims\t o f\t justice\t as\t tr umping \t their \t mo r e\t par ticular istic\t inter ests, they\t are,\t in\t effect,\t treating\t their\t \u2018citizenship\t identity\u2019\t \u2013\t the\t identity\t they\t have\t in common\t with\t their\t fellow\t citizens\t \u2013\t as\t more\t important\t than\t their\t other,\t more particularistic\t and\t differentiated,\t identities.\t People\t are\t expected\t to\t be\t sufficiently constituted\tby\t\u2013\tsufficiently\tto\tidentify\twith\t\u2013\ttheir\tidentity\tas\t\u2018citizen\u2019\tthat,\twhen\tthe demands\tof\tthat\tidentity\tconflict\twith\tthe\tdemands\tof\ttheir\tother\tidentities,\tthe\trole of\t citizen\t takes\t priority.\t So\t liberals\t do\t recognize\t the\t importance\t of\t a\t common, shared\tidentity.","Objection\t7:\tLiberals\twrongly\tthink\tthat\tthe\tstate\tcan\tand\tshould\tbe neutral The\tidea\tthat\tthe\tstate\tshould\tbe\tneutral\tbetween\tits\tcitizens\tis\toften\tassociated\twith liberalism.\tIt\tfits\twith\tthe\tidea\tof\tthe\tstate\tas\tan\timpartial\tumpire,\tproviding\ta\tlevel playing-field,\ta\tfair\tframework\twithin\twhich\tthe\tindividual\tis\tleft\tfree\tto\tpursue\ther own\tgood\tin\ther\town\tway.\tIt\tis\tnot\tlegitimate\tfor\tthe\tstate\tto\tmake\tjudgements\tabout how\t people\t should\t lead\t their\t lives,\t even\t if\t those\t judgements\t are\t made democratically,\tfor\tthat\tinvolves\tthe\tcommunity\timposing\tits\twill\ton\tindividuals\tin a\t way\t that\t violates\t the\t requirement\t that\t they\t be\t treated\t with\t equal\t concern\t and r espect.\t Whenever \t the\t state\t pr o mo tes,\t o r \t disco ur ag es,\t par ticular \t ways\t o f\t life,\t it\t is not\t acting\t neutrally.\t So\t the\t British\t state,\t which\t discourages\t gambling\t (through taxation),\t encourages\t the\t arts\t (through\t subsidy)\t and\t gives\t special\t standing\t to\t the Anglican\t Church,\t is\t not,\t in\t this\t sense,\t a\t neutral\t state.\t Similarly,\t the\t US\t federal government,\t despite\t its\t official\t commitment\t to\t individual\t freedom,\t deliberately encourages\t specific\t ways\t of\t life:\t it\t subsidizes\t national\t parks\t and\t the\t National Endowment\tfor\tthe\tArts,\tand\tencourages\treligious\tactivity\tby\tmaking\tdonations\tto churches\ttax-deductible.\tBoth\tcountries\thave\ttax\tlaws\tthat\tsupport\tmarriage\t(though they\tdiffer\tin\tthe\textent\tto\twhich\tthey\tare\tbiased\tin\tfavour\tof\theterosexual\tmarriage, an\tarea\twhere\tthings\tare\tchanging\tfast). One\t obvious\t problem\t is\t that\t it\t isn\u2019t\t at\t all\t clear\t what\t kind\t of\t neutrality\t is\t being claimed\t fo r \t a\t so -called\t \u2018neutr al\u2019\t state.\t Since\t it\t explicitly\t pr o mo tes\t cer tain\t values\t \u2013 such\t as\t individual\t freedom\t and\t autonomy\t \u2013\t how\t can\t the\t claim\t to\t neutrality\t be anything\t other\t than\t a\t sham?\t To\t make\t good\t their\t claim,\t neutralist\t liberals\t will typically\t invoke\t a\t distinction\t between\t (a)\t the\t individual\u2019s\t capacity\t to\t choose\t and pursue\t her\t own\t conception\t of\t the\t good\t and\t (b)\t the\t conceptions\t of\t the\t good\t she might\tchoose\tand\tpursue.\tThey\tare\tnot\tneutral\tabout\t(a),\tbut\tthey\tare\tneutral\tabout (b).\tIndeed,\tin\tsome\tversions,\tit\u2019s\tprecisely\tbecause\tthey\tcare\tso\tmuch\tabout\t(a)\tthat neutrality\t about\t (b)\t matters.\t Since\t individual\t freedom\t and\t autonomy\t are\t so impo r tant,\t the\t state\t sho uld\t r estr ict\t its\t r o le\t to \t that\t o f\t g uar anteeing \t fair \t backg r o und conditions.\tIt\tshouldn\u2019t\titself\tencourage\tor\tdiscourage\tany\tparticular\tconceptions\tof how\tpeople\tshould\tlive. Sometimes\tthis\tis\tput\tas\ta\tdistinction\tbetween\t\u2018the\tright\u2019\tand\t\u2018the\tgood\u2019.\tThe\tstate should\t uphold\t justice\t and\t people\u2019s\t rights\t as\t citizens\t (which\t derive\t from\t their capacity\t for\t autonomy)\t but\t it\t should\t not\t get\t more\t involved\t than\t it\t needs\t to\t in questions\tof\t\u2018the\tgood\u2019\t(how\tpeople\tshould\tlead\ttheir\tlives).\tRecognizing\tthat\teven a\ttheory\tof\tjustice\tdoes\tin\teffect\tpresuppose\tsome\tconception\tof\thow\tpeople\tshould live\tand\twhat\tis\tgood\tfor\tthem,\tRawls\tputs\tthe\tdistinction\tas\tfollows:\tthe\tstate\tmay act\ton\ta\t\u2018thin\u2019\ttheory\tof\tthe\tgood,\tfor\tthis\tis\tneutral\tin\tthe\tsense\tthat\tit\tis\tcommon ground\tbetween\tcitizens\tand\tit\tapplies\tsolely\tto\tthe\tpolitical\tsphere.\tHe\taccepts\tthat","his\t liberalism\t involves\t a\t political\t conception\t of\t the\t good\t (or\t a\t conception\t of\t the political\t good).\t But\t the\t state\t may\t not\t act\t on\t particular\t comprehensive\t doctrines\t \u2013 full-blown\t views\t about\t how\t people\t should\t lead\t their\t lives\t in\t general\t \u2013\t that\t are endorsed\t by\t some\t but\t rejected\t by\t others\t of\t its\t citizens.\t For\t Rawls,\t members\t of today\u2019s\t advanced\t societies\t disagree\t in\t their\t comprehensive\t doctrines.\t But\t they nonetheless\tcoincide\tin\taffirming\tthe\tcore\tliberal\tvalues\tof\tfreedom\t(spelled\tout\tin terms\t of\t the\t capacity\t to\t frame,\t revise\t and\t pursue\t a\t conception\t of\t the\t good)\t and equality.\t There\t is,\t for\t him,\t an\t \u2018overlapping\t consensus\u2019\t on\t these\t distinctively political\tvalues.\tThese\tcan\ttherefore\tbe\tworked\tup\t\u2013\tvia\ta\tmodelling\tdevice\tlike\tthe original\tposition\t\u2013\tinto\ta\ttheory\tof\tpolitical\tjustice.\tThat\ttheory\tis\t\u2018neutral\u2019,\tthen,\tin the\t sense\t that\t it\t builds\t on\t \u2018common\t ground\u2019.\t It\t appeals\t only\t to\t reasons\t that\t all\t in some\t sense\t share\t (and\t not\t to\t reasons\t grounded\t in\t particular\t and\t controversial doctrines\tabout\twhich\tpeople\treasonably\tdisagree). The\tdifficulties\traised\tby\tthis\tRawlsian\tapproach\twill\tbe\tdiscussed\tlater.\tFor\tnow, it\tis\timportant\tto\tsee\tthat\tsome\tvariants\tof\tliberalism\tare\tnot\tcommitted\tto\tneutrality between\tconceptions\tof\tthe\tgood\t(or\tcomprehensive\tdoctrines)\tat\tall.\tIt\tis\ttempting to\t think\t that\t a\t state\t that\t takes\t no\t view\t about\t how\t its\t citizens\t should\t live\t \u2013\t beyond how\tthey\tshould\ttreat\tone\tanother\tas\tcitizens\t\u2013\tis\tmore\t\u2018liberal\u2019\tthan\tone\tthat\tdoes. On\t that\t view,\t the\t current\t US\t federal\t and\t British\t states\t are\t less\t liberal\t than\t they would\t be\t if\t they\t refrained\t from\t subsidizing\t the\t arts\t or\t encouraging\t marriage. Though\t this\t has\t some\t intuitive\t appeal\t \u2013\t and\t some\t liberals\t would\t indeed\t endorse this\t claim\t \u2013\t it\t is\t dang er ous\t to \t see\t it\t as\t a\t matter \t o f\t definitio n,\t as\t if\t liber alism\t and state\tneutrality\tnecessarily\tgo\ttogether. There\t are\t two\t reasons\t why\t it\t is\t dangerous.\t The\t less\t important\t one\t is\t that\t even Rawls\tthinks\tthat\tsome\tstate\taction\tin\tfavour\tof\tparticular\tcomprehensive\tdoctrines can\tbe\tjustified.\tWhat\tis\tnot\tjustified\tis\tfor\tsuch\tconceptions\tto\tinfluence\tstate\taction where\t it\t involves\t constitutional\t essentials\t and\t matters\t of\t basic\t justice.\t As\t long\t as those\t are\t in\t place,\t and\t in\t the\t appropriate\t sense\t neutral\t or\t \u2018political\u2019,\t people\t may vote\tfor\tstate\tpolicies\tthat\tfit\twith\ttheir\town\tcomprehensive\tdoctrines,\tand\tthe\tstate may\t act\t on\t the\t outcome.\t So\t a\t Rawlsian\t state\t can\t subsidize\t art\t galleries\t and museums\t and\t natio nal\t par ks,\t if\t that\u2019s\t what\t its\t citizens\t vo te\t fo r.\t What\t it\t can\u2019t\t do \t is ground\t its\t constitutional\t arrangements,\t or\t its\t conception\t of\t basic\t justice,\t in\t any particular\t comprehensive\t doctrine.\t (It\u2019s\t worth\t mentioning\t that\t Rawls\t has\t changed his\tmind\ton\tthis.\tIn\t1971,\teven\tsubsidizing\tart\tgalleries\twas\truled\tout.) The\tmore\timportant\treason\twhy\twe\tshould\tnot\tidentify\tliberalism\twith\tthe\tidea\tof a\tneutral\tstate\tis\tthat\tdoing\tso\twould\tblind\tus\tto\tkinds\tof\tliberalism\tthat\tdo\tnot\twant neutr ality\t at\t all.\t On\t such\t views,\t no thing \t in\t the\t liber al\t pictur e\t tells\t ag ainst\t the\t state acting\t to\t encourage\t its\t citizens\t to\t live\t valuable\t lives\t and\t discourage\t them\t from living\t worthless\t ones.\t It\t matters\t that\t people\t live\t autonomously,\t that\t they\t are\t the makers\tor\tauthors\tof\ttheir\town\tlives,\trather\tthan\tbeing\tsubject\tto\tthe\twill\tof\tothers.","But\tit\talso\tmatters\tthat\tthe\tlives\tthey\tlive\tare\tvaluable\tin\ttheir\town\tright.\tThe\tmere fact\t that\t so mebo dy\t has\t cho sen\t to \t live\t her \t life\t a\t cer tain\t way\t do esn\u2019t\t mean\t that\t that way\t of\t life\t is\t good,\t even\t for\t her.\t Choice,\t though\t necessary\t for\t individual\t well- being ,\t is\t no t\t sufficient.\t It\t matter s\t also \t that\t she\t makes\t g o o d\t cho ices.\t If\t the\t state\t can help\ther\tchoose\twell,\tthen\tit\tis\tjustified\tin\tdoing\tso. This,\t in\t a\t nutshell,\t is\t the\t kind\t of\t \u2018perfectionist\t liberalism\u2019\t most\t systematically developed\tby\tJoseph\tRaz.\tIn\this\tview,\tliberalism\tis\tnot\tessentially\ta\tdoctrine\twhich restricts\t the\t state\u2019s\t role\t to\t that\t of\t providing\t a\t level\t playing-field,\t avoiding judgements\t about\t how\t people\t should\t live\t their\t lives.\t It\t is\t a\t doctrine\t that\t permits, and\t in\t some\t cases\t may\t require,\t the\t state\t to\t make\t and\t act\t on\t such\t judgements.\t By subsidizing\t(and\tin\tother\tways\tencouraging)\tvaluable\tways\tof\tlife,\tand\ttaxing\t(and in\t other\t ways\t discouraging)\t worthless\t or\t empty\t ones,\t the\t state\t can\t promote\t the well-being\tof\tits\tcitizens.\tBeing\ta\tliberal\tstate,\tit\tcannot\tforce\tpeople\tto\tmake\tgood choices,\t and\t it\t shouldn\u2019t\t prevent\t them\t from\t acting\t on\t their\t bad\t ones.\t But subsidizing\t the\t arts\t is\t not\t forcing\t people\t into\t theatres\t and\t art\t galleries. Enco ur ag ing \t mar r iag e\t is\t no t\t r equir ing \t peo ple\t to \t g et\t mar r ied.\t Taxing \t g ambling \t is not\tbanning\tit. To\t see\t the\t difference\t between\t neutralist\t and\t perfectionist\t kinds\t of\t liberalism, consider\t the\t case\t of\t legislation\t in\t relation\t to\t sexuality.\t According\t to\t neutralist liberals,\tthe\tstate\tshould\tconcern\titself\tsolely\twith\tjustice,\tleaving\tpeople\tfree\tto\tact sexually\t as\t they\t wish.\t Peo ple\t canno t,\t o f\t co ur se,\t har m\t o ther s,\t and\t the\t pr o tectio n\t o f children\tis\ta\tlegitimate\tconcern\tof\tthe\tstate.\tSo,\tif\tthey\tbelieve\tthat\t16\tas\tthe\tage\tof consent\tfor\thomosexual\tsex\twould\tbe\tmore\tlikely\tto\tharm\tchildren\tthan\twould\tthe same\t age\t for\t heterosexual\t sex,\t they\t could\t argue\t for\t different\t ages\t on\t neutral grounds.\t What\t neutralist\t liberals\t cannot\t do\t is\t argue\t for\t different\t treatment\t on\t the grounds\t that\t some\t kinds\t of\t sexual\t activity\t are\t intrinsically\t more\t worthy\t (or depr aved)\t than\t o ther s.\t As\t individuals,\t we\t may\t have\t views\t abo ut\t that.\t Per haps\t such views\tderive\tfrom\tour\treligious\tbeliefs.\tBut\tthose\tbeliefs\tshould\tbe\tkept\tout\tof\tour thinking\tabout\thow,\tas\tcitizens,\twe\tshould\ttreat\tone\tanother.\tSome\tpeople\tfind\tit\todd that\t Tony\t Blair,\t whose\t children\t were\t educated\t in\t Catholic\t schools,\t should\t have supported\t lowering\t the\t age\t of\t consent\t for\t gay\t sex\t to\t 16.\t But\t even\t if\t Blair \u2019s religious\tviews\twere\tof\tthe\tkind\tthat\tregarded\tgay\tsex\tas\tworse\tthan\tstraight\tsex,\the might\t still\t think\t that\t those\t views\t were\t irrelevant\t to\t the\t political\t issue\t of\t how\t the state\t should\t act.\t (In\t the\t US,\t former\t Senator\t Ted\t Kennedy\t opposed\t restrictions\t on abortion,\tdespite\tbeing\ta\tCatholic.) Per fectio nist\t liber als,\t o n\t the\t o ther \t hand,\t think\t that\t it\t is\t appr o pr iate\t fo r \t us\t to \t use the\tstate\tto\tget\tone\tanother\tto\tlive\tbetter\trather\tthan\tworse\tlives.\tIf\t\u2013\tand\tit\tis\ta\tvery big\tif\t\u2013\tstraight\tsex\tis\tmore\tvaluable\tthan\tgay\tsex,\tthen\tthe\tstate\tmight\tbe\tjustified\tin promoting\t heterosexuality\t and\t discouraging\t homosexuality.\t It\t would\t not\t be permissible\t for\t the\t state\t to\t seek\t to\t enforce\t a\t ban\t on\t homosexual\t acts.\t We\u2019re\t still","dealing\twith\ta\tfundamentally\tliberal\tperspective,\tand\tthat\tkind\tof\tban\twould\tviolate citizens\u2019\t autonomy.\t But,\t because,\t unlike\t the\t neutralist,\t she\t does\t not\t exclude per fectio nist\t co nsider atio ns\t in\t pr inciple,\t a\t per fectio nist\t leaves\t mo r e\t o n\t the\t ag enda for\tpolitical\tdecision. Take\t another\t example:\t \u2018family\t values\u2019.\t One\t might\t promote\t such\t values\t on\t the ground\t that\t it\t is\t intrinsically\t better\t for\t people\t to\t live\t their\t lives\t in\t stable heterosexual\t marriages\t than\t in\t alternative\t arrangements.\t This\t would\t be\t a perfectionist\treason,\tand\tneutralists\twould\tregard\tit\tas\tinappropriate\twhen\tit\tcomes to\tdeciding\tstate\tpolicy.\tBut\tthere\tmight\talso\tbe\tother\t\u2018neutral\u2019\treasons\tfor\tthinking it\t legitimate\t for\t the\t state\t to\t encourage\t family\t values.\t Perhaps\t other\t family\t forms are\tmore\tlikely\tto\tharm\tthe\tchildren\traised\tin\tthem,\tor\tto\tproduce\tchildren\tlikely\tto harm\t others\t (e.g.,\t by\t becoming\t delinquent).\t (Of\t course,\t there\t is\t going\t to\t be disag r eement\t abo ut\t what\t co unts\t as\t \u2018har m\u2019,\t and\t abo ut\t what\t co unts\t as\t evidence\t that harm\t is\t caused.\t The\t point\t is\t not\t that\t it\u2019s\t easy\t to\t decide\t whether\t state\t support\t for family\t values\t can\t be\t justified\t on\t neutral\t grounds.\t It\u2019s\t simply\t to\t bring\t out\t the difference\t between\t two\t kinds\t of\t argument\t for\t such\t support.)\t Something\t similar applies\t in\t the\t case\t of\t pornography.\t If\t \u2013\t perhaps\t not\t such\t a\t big\t if\t this\t time\t \u2013 po r no g r aphy\t har ms\t wo men,\t then\t the\t neutr alist\t liber al\t will\t co nsider \t state\t measur es against\t it.\t What\tshe\two n\u2019t\tcountenance\tis\tstate\tpo licy\tdir ected\tag ainst\t po r nogr aphy on\tthe\tground\tthat\tit\tis\tinherently\tdegrading\tor\tbad\tfor\tthe\tperson\tconsuming\tit.\tAs an\t individual,\t I\t may\t think\t that\t those\t for\t whom\t the\t consumption\t of\t pornography plays\ta\tcentral\trole\tare\tliving\tlives\tthat\tare\tless\tworthwhile,\tless\tvaluable\tfor\tthem, than\twould\tbe\ta\tlife\twithout\tit.\tBut\t\u2013\tin\tthe\tabsence\tof\tharm\tto\tothers\t\u2013\tthat\tis\tnot\ta reason\tfor\tthe\tstate\tto\ttake\taction\tagainst\tit. What\thas\tany\tof\tthis\tto\tdo\twith\tcommunity?\tAfter\tall,\tthe\tidea\tthat\tthe\tstate\tmay be\tpermitted,\tor\trequired,\tto\tact\ton\tperfectionist\tjudgements\tabout\tthe\tvalue\tof\tways o f\t life\t favo ur ed\t by\t so me\t o f\t its\t citizens\t has\t no \t inher ently\t co mmunal\t co ntent.\t (One might,\tof\tcourse,\tadd\tthe\tclaim\tthat\t\u2018communal\u2019\tways\tof\tlife\tare\tmore\tvaluable\tthan \u2018solitary\u2019\t or\t \u2018individualistic\u2019\t ones.\t But\t nothing\t in\t the\t argument\t supposes\t this.\t It could\t be\t accepted\t by\t somebody\t who\t thought\t that\t the\t life\t of\t a\t hermit\t or\t reclusive artist\t was\t valuable\t and\t worthy\t of\t promotion\t by\t the\t state\t for\t that\t reason.)\t This discussio n\t o f\t neutr ality\t is\t r elevant\t because\t it\t co ncer ns\t the\t pr o per \t r elatio n\t between the\t political\t community\t and\t the\t individual.\t The\t perfectionist\t thinks\t it\t justified\t for the\tpolitical\tcommunity\tcollectively\tto\tmake\tand\tact\ton\tjudgements\tabout\twhat\twill make\t the\t lives\t of\t its\t individual\t member s\t go\t better \t or \t wor se.\t The\t neutr alist\t thinks that\tsuch\tjudgements\tshould\tbe\tleft\trather\tto\tindividuals,\twith\tthe\tstate\tmerely\tacting to \t pr o vide\t an\t appr o pr iately\t impar tial\t set\t o f\t r ules\t and\t institutio ns.\t In\t this\t par ticular sense,\t then,\t perfectionist\t liberals\t might\t be\t thought\t to\t be\t more\t \u2018communitarian\u2019\t \u2013 and\tless\t\u2018individualistic\u2019\t\u2013\tthan\ttheir\tneutralist\tcounterparts.","Summary This\t section\t correcting\t misrepresentations\t and\t misunderstandings\t sometimes co mmitted\t in\t the\t name\t o f\t \u2018co mmunity\u2019\t beg an\t with\t so me\t elementar y\t clar ificatio ns. Liberalism\t is\t not\t a\t doctrine\t of\t egoism,\t nor\t does\t it\t imply\t (by\t which\t philosophers mean\t\u2018necessarily\timply\u2019)\ta\tminimal\tstate.\tThings\tgot\ta\tbit\tmore\tinteresting\twhen\tI pointed\t out\t that,\t despite\t what\t some\t communitarians\t have\t suggested,\t liberals\t are interested\t in\t duties\t and\t responsibilities,\t need\t not\t believe\t that\t values\t are\t merely subjective\t (not\t even\t values\t concerning\t the\t best\t way\t to\t live\t one\u2019s\t life)\t and\t can perfectly\twell\taccommodate\tthe\tways\tin\twhich\tindividuals\tare\t\u2018constituted\u2019\t\u2013\tmade the\t par ticular \t individuals\t they\t ar e\t \u2013\t by\t the\t so cial\t co ntext,\t o r \t co mmunity,\t in\t which they\tlive.\tThe\tfurther\tsuggestion\tthat\tsome\tversions\tof\tliberalism\thave\tno\tproblem according\tsignificance\tto\tcommunal\trelations,\tshared\tvalues\tand\ta\tcommon\tidentity brought\tout\tthe\tsense\tin\twhich\tliberalism\tcould\titself\tbe\tunderstood\tas\ta\ttheory\tof the\t \u2018common\t good\u2019.\t Finally,\t we\t moved\t closer\t to\t the\t frontier\t of\t current philosophical\tdebate\tas\tI\tintroduced\tthe\tidea\tthat\tliberals\tneed\tnot\tlimit\tthe\trole\tof the\tstate\tto\tthat\tof\tproviding\ta\tlevel\tplaying-field,\ta\tneutral\tframework\tthat\tleaves\tto individuals\tall\tjudgements\tabout\twhat\tmakes\tpeople\u2019s\tlives\tbetter\tor\tworse.\tHere\tthe discussion\tconnected\twith\tthe\tconcerns\tof\tsome\tcommunitarians\twho\tare\tconcerned to\thalt\twhat\tthey\tdiagnose\tas\ta\tprocess\tof\tmoral\tdecline. I\t have\t introduced\t two\t importantly\t different\t strands\t in\t liberal\t thinking:\t Rawls\u2019s \u2018political\t liberalism\u2019\t and\t Raz\u2019s\t \u2018perfectionist\t liberalism\u2019.\t Rawls\t is\t the\t one\t saying that,\t at\t least\t in\t regard\t to\t constitutional\t essentials\t and\t matters\t of\t basic\t justice,\t the state\tmust\trestrict\tits\trole\tto\tthe\tpursuit\tof\tthose\tvalues\tin\tsome\tsense\tshared\tby\tall: the\tthin\tor\tpolitical\ttheory\tof\tthe\tgood\twhich\tis\tto\tdo\twith\tjustice,\tequality,\tfreedom, autonomy.\t This\t kind\t of\t liberalism\t is\t \u2018communitarian\u2019\t in\t seeking\t to\t build\t only\t on \u2018neutral\u2019,\t common\t ground.\t Raz\u2019s\t conception\t of\t liberalism\t does\t not\t realize community\tin\tthis\tsense.\tAs\tlong\tas\tit\tis\tindeed\thelping\tits\tcitizens\tlive\tbetter\tlives\t\u2013 lives\t that\t ar e\t better \t fo r \t them\t no t\t just\t fo r \t the\t r est\t o f\t us\t \u2013\t the\t state\t need\t no t\t co nfine itself\t to\t this\t common\t ground;\t it\t may\t make\t and\t act\t on\t more\t controversial judgements.\tThis\tis\tcommunitarian\tin\ta\tdifferent\tway.\tHere\tthe\tpolitical\tcommunity may\t legitimately\t promote\t the\t well-being\t of\t its\t members\t even\t where\t this\t takes\t it beyond\tneutrality. I\t admitted,\t early\t on,\t that\t my\t attempt\t to\t defend\t liberalism\t from\t attacks\t by communitarian\t critics\t would\t take\t advantage\t of\t the\t diversity\t that\t liberalism\t shares with\tall\tother\t\u2018isms\u2019.\tThe\treader\tmay\tfeel\tthat\tI\u2019ve\tgone\tso\tfar\tas\tto\tcheat.\tIt\tis\ttrue that\t I\t have\t allowed\t \u2018liberalism\u2019\t to\t refer\t to\t two\t different\t positions.\t But\t both\t these doctrines\t hold\t that\t the\t freedom\t and\t autonomy\t of\t individuals\t is\t essential\t to\t their well-being\t (the\t rough\t definition\t I\t offered\t at\t the\t beginning).\t So\t it\t is\t legitimate\t to invo ke\t bo th\t in\t o r der \t to \t co unter \t the\t char g e\t that\t liber als\t neg lect\t the\t sig nificance\t o f","\u2018community\u2019.\t In\t any\t case,\t despite\t their\t differences,\t both\t can\t be\t seen\t to\t regard liberalism\tas\ta\ttheory\tof\tcommunity,\ta\tcommunity\tconcerned\twith\tthe\tpromotion\tof a\t common\t good,\t the\t good\t of\t a\t just\t society.\t A\t society\t whose\t members\t care\t not solely\tabout\tthemselves\tor\ttheir\tfamilies,\tbut\tabout\tthe\tautonomy\tof\tall\ttheir\tfellow citizens,\t and\t who \t ar e\t pr epar ed\t to \t limit\t the\t pur suit\t o f\t self-inter est\t to \t the\t extent\t that the\t duties\t owed\t to\t their\t fellow\t citizens\t require\t it\t (e.g.,\t by\t accepting\t redistributive taxation\t from\t the\t better\t off\t to\t the\t worse\t off),\t is\t a\t society\t characterized\t by solidarity,\tfraternity\tand\tcommunity.","Outstanding\tissues That\t is\t not,\t unfortunately,\t the\t end\t of\t the\t story.\t Stopping\t now\t would\t give\t a misleadingly\t one-sided\t account\t of\t things,\t suggesting\t that\t communitarian\t thinking has\t contributed\t nothing\t but\t error\t and\t confusion.\t In\t fact,\t as\t well\t as\t forcing clarification\t of\t what\t liberalism\t amounts\t to\t \u2013\t or,\t rather,\t the\t variety\t of\t different things\tit\tmight\tamount\tto\t\u2013\tthe\tcommunitarian\tcritique\thas\tthrown\tup\ta\tnumber\tof crucial\tissues\tthat\tremain\tunresolved.\tCommunitarians\thave\tsometimes\tbeen\tguilty o f\t unchar itable\t inter pr etatio ns\t o f\t liber al\t wr iting s.\t But\t a\t char itable\t r eading \t o f\t what communitarians\thave\tto\tsay\twould\tsee\tthem\tas\traising\tdeep\tand\timportant\tquestions that\t are\t still\t very\t much\t up\t for\t grabs.\t (A\t charitable\t reading\t of\t a\t text\t is\t one\t that interprets\t it\t so\t as\t to\t make\t as\t much\t of\t it\t as\t true\t as\t possible.\t Especially\t where so mebo dy\t disag r ees\t with\t yo u,\t it\t is\t usually\t a\t g o o d\t idea\t to \t see\t whether \t ther e\t is\t any way\tin\twhich\twhat,\tor\tsome\tof\twhat,\tthey\tare\tsaying\tcould\tbe\ttrue.\tIt\u2019s\tlikely\tto\tbe more\t intellectually\t productive\t than\t the\t opposing\t strategy,\t which\t is\t exactly\t what politicians\t are\t trained\t to\t do:\t they\t deliberately\t avoid\t whatever\t is\t good\t in\t their opponents\u2019\targuments\tand\thome\tin\ton\t\u2013\tand\trubbish\t\u2013\tthe\tbad\tbits.)","1\tLiberalism,\tneutrality\tand\tmulticulturalism Recall\t our\t discussion\t of\t liberal\t neutrality.\t Not\t all\t variants\t of\t liberalism\t want\t the state\tto\tbe\ta\tneutral\tumpire,\tbut\tsome\tdo.\tAs\twe\tsaw,\tthose\twho\tdo\thave\tto\tdeal\twith the\t obvious\t objection\t that\t a\t liberal\t state\t can\u2019t\t be\t neutral\t about\t everything.\t They typically\t respond\t by\t admitting\t that\t this\t is\t indeed\t obvious\t and\t that\t the\t kind\t of neutrality\t they\t are\t interested\t in\t is\t a\t specific\t kind\t of\t neutrality.\t Neutrality\t not\t on justice,\trights,\tautonomy\tand\tequality\t\u2013\twhat\tRawls\tcalls\ta\tthin\ttheory\tof\tthe\tgood\t\u2013 but\tneutrality\ton\tthe\tways\tthat\tpeople\tmight\tchoose\tto\tlive\twithin\ta\tjust\tstate.\tThey sometimes\t add\t that\t of\t course\t their\t preferred\t state\t is\t not\t neutral\t in\t terms\t of\t the effects\t it\t has\t on\t the\t different\t kinds\t of\t life\t that\t people\t might\t live.\t Expensive lifestyles,\t for\t example,\t which\t might\t thrive\t if\t there\t were\t an\t unjust\t distribution\t of r eso ur ces,\t will\t tend\t to \t be\t less\t po pular \t o nce\t ever ybo dy\t has\t o nly\t her \t fair \t shar e.\t So too\twill\tways\tof\tlife\tthat\tdepend\tfor\ttheir\tsurvival\ton\tpeople\tnot\tbeing\tproperly\tfree to\t reject\t them\t \u2013\t those\t that\t can\t attract\t adherents\t only\t when\t people\t are\t denied\t a proper\t sense\t of\t the\t options\t available\t to\t them.\t But,\t neutralist\t liberals\t will\t say,\t it makes\tno\tsense\tfor\ta\tstate\tto\tpursue\tneutrality\tof\teffect.\tHow\tcould\tit\tpossibly\ttake into\t account\t the\t likely\t effects\t of\t its\t policies\t on\t all\t the\t different\t ways\t of\t life endorsed\tby\tits\tcitizens?\tRather,\tthe\tkind\tof\tneutrality\tit\tis\targuing\tfor\tis\tneutrality of\taim\tor\tjustification.\tWhat\tmatters\tis\tthat\tthe\tstate\u2019s\treasons\tfor\taction\tshould\tnot be\t a\t judgement\t about\t some\t ways\t of\t life\t being\t better\t than\t others,\t but\t should\t be reasons\tthat\tare\tneutral\tbetween\tthem\t(reasons\tsuch\tas\tthose\tappealing\tto\tthe\tvalue of\tindividual\tfreedom\tand\tautonomy). Will\tthis\tdo?\tIt\tseems\tsimply\tto\tinvite\tthe\tsame\tchallenge\tin\tanother\tform.\t\u2018OK,\u2019 the\tobjection\tnow\tgoes,\t\u2018I\tsee\tthat\tyou\tdon\u2019t\twant\tthe\tstate\tto\tbe\tneutral\ton\tmatters of\t\u201cthe\tright\u201d\t\u2013\tor\twhat\tsome\tof\tyou\tcall\ta\t\u201cthin\u201d\ttheory\tof\tthe\tgood.\tI\tsee\tthat\tyou don\u2019t\tclaim\tthat\tit\tcan\tbe\tneutral\tin\tits\teffects\ton\thow\tpeople\tchoose\tto\tlive.\tBut\tin that\tcase\tI\tdon\u2019t\tsee\twhy\tyou\tthink\tthis\tis\tneutral\tin\tany\tsense\tthat\tmatters.\tWhy\tnot just\t admit\t that\t it\t embodies\t a\t substantial\t and\t substantive\t set\t of\t values?\t Your\t talk abo ut\t \u201cneutr ality\u201d\t is\t a\t bit\t o f\t r heto r ic\t suppo sed\t to \t per suade\t us\t that\t yo ur \t state\t is\t an impartial\t arbiter,\t above\t the\t fray\t of\t competing\t visions\t of\t how\t society\t should\t be organized.\tBut\tthat\tis\ta\tdishonest\tway\tof\tpresenting\tthings.\u2019 Neutralist\tliberals\tare\tthus\tpresented\twith\ta\tdilemma.\tThey\tcan\tstraightforwardly ar g ue\t fo r \t the\t impo r tance\t o f\t the\t values\t \u2013\t individual\t auto no my,\t etc.\t \u2013\t they\t endo r se. Or\tthey\tcan\ttry\tto\tdefend\tsome\tversion\tof\ttheir\tclaim\tto\tneutrality.\tIf\tthey\tpursue\tthe fo r mer \t str ateg y,\t they\t ar e\t in\t effect\t accepting \t that\t the\t state\t canno t\t pr esent\t itself\t as\t a neutral\t umpire.\t It\t must\t justify\t what\t it\t does\t by\t direct\t appeal\t to\t the\t claim\t that\t the values\tit\tpromotes\tare\ttrue,\tor\tvalid,\tand\tthose\twho\tdo\tnot\tendorse\tthem\tare\tmaking a\tmistake\t\u2013\ta\tmistake\tof\tthe\tkind\tthat,\tif\tnecessary,\twarrants\tcoercive\tstate\taction\tto correct\t it.\t Many\t liberals\t think\t that\t this\t is\t indeed\t the\t right\t strategy\t to\t pursue\t \u2013","liberals\t should\t stand\t up\t for\t liberal\t values\t without\t hiding\t behind\t any\t claim\t to significant\t neutrality.\t But\t some,\t most\t notably\t Rawls,\t have\t tried\t to\t take\t the\t other tack.\tIn\tRawls\u2019s\tview,\tthe\tfirst\tstrategy\tis\tunacceptable\tbecause\tit\tpresents\tliberalism as\t \u2018just\t another\t sectarian\t doctrine\u2019.\t What\t should\t matter\t to\t liberals\t is\t that\t the coercive\tpower\tof\tthe\tstate\t\u2013\tbeing\tpower\theld\tjointly\tby\tcitizens\twho\tare\tfree\tand equal\t \u2013\t is\t used,\t at\t least\t wher e\t co nstitutio nal\t essentials\t and\t matter s\t o f\t basic\t justice are\tconcerned,\tonly\tin\tways\tthat\tcan\tbe\tjustified\tto\tthose\tforced\tto\tdo\twhat\tit\tsays. It\u2019s\t not\t enough\t that\t liberal\t values\t be\t objectively\t \u2018true\u2019\t or\t \u2018valid\u2019.\t If\t they\t are\t to inform\tstate\taction,\tthey\tmust\tqualify\tas\t\u2018common\tground\u2019.\tThey\tmust\tbe\tpart\tof\tthe political\t \u2018overlapping\t consensus\u2019\t on\t which\t citizens\t can\t agree\t despite\t their\t other differences. Do\t people\t coincide\t in\t affirming\t these\t political\t values?\t Many\t do.\t There\t are indeed\tmany\treligious\tbelievers,\tand\tadvocates\tof\tother\tcomprehensive\tconceptions of\tthe\tgood,\twho\thold\tthose\tdoctrines\tin\ta\tliberal\tspirit.\tThey\tbelieve\ttheir\tdoctrines to\tbe\ttrue,\tbut\tthose\tdoctrines\tthemselves\taccord\tindividual\tfreedom\tand\tautonomy sufficient\timportance\tfor\tthem\tnot\tto\twant\tthe\tstate\tto\tdeny\tits\tcitizens\tliberal\trights. If\t all\t those\t living\t subject\t to\t the\t author ity\t of\t the\t liber al\t state\t held\t doctr ines\t of\t this kind,\t then\t Rawls\u2019s\t claim\t to\t be\t building\t only\t on\t common\t ground\t might\t be\t valid. But,\tthough\tmany\tdo,\tnot\tall\tdo.\tSome\tof\tthose\tsubject\tto\tits\tauthority\tsubscribe\tto doctrines\tin\twhich\tindividual\tfreedom\tis\tof\tlittle\tor\tno\tvalue,\tcertainly\tnot\tvaluable enough\t for\t them\t to\t regard\t it\t as\t taking\t priority\t in\t cases\t of\t conflict.\t Consider\t the case\t of\t Salman\t Rushdie,\t whose\t novel\t The\t Satanic\t Verses\t was\t thought\t to\t ridicule elements\tof\tthe\tIslamic\tfaith.\tProtecting\tRushdie\u2019s\tfreedom\tof\texpression\twas\theld by\t some\t (by\t no\t means\t all)\t British\t Muslims\t to\t be\t less\t important\t than\t protecting Islam\t from\t blasphemy.\t Returning\t to\t an\t earlier\t example,\t consider\t the\t claims\t of those\t who\t want\t to\t raise\t their\t children\t in\t accordance\t with\t a\t particular\t religion, blissfully\tignorant\tof\tthe\tother\toptions\tthose\tchildren\tmight\tmisguidedly\tchoose\tto pursue\tif\tthey\tknew\tabout\tthem.\tMost\tliberals\ttake\ttheir\tcommitment\tto\tautonomy\tto r equir e\t them\t to \t advo cate\t at\t least\t so me\t state\t inter ventio n,\t in\t the\t name\t o f\t childr en\u2019s autonomy.\t How\t does\t Rawls\t deal\t with\t the\t fact\t that\t some\t members\t of\t today\u2019s multicultural\tsocieties\tdo\tnot\taffirm\tthe\toverlapping\tconsensus\ton\tliberal\tvalues? His\t response\t is\t to\t say\t that\t they\t are\t \u2018unreasonable\u2019.\t It\t is\t reasonable\t to\t disagree about\tcomprehensive\tdoctrines\t\u2013\tCatholicism,\tIslam,\tutilitarianism,\ta\tlife\tdedicated to \t ar t.\t That\t is\t par tly\t why\t it\t matter s\t that\t peo ple\t be\t fr ee\t to \t cho o se\t which\t o f\t them\t to pur sue.\t But\t it\t is\t no t\t r easo nable\t to \t disag r ee\t abo ut\t the\t po litical\t values\t o f\t auto no my, freedom\tand\tequality.\tSomeone\twho\tdenies\tthose\tis\tindeed\toutside\tthe\toverlapping consensus.\t But\t that\t is\t her\t problem.\t She\t is\t outside\t it\t because\t she\t is\t unreasonable. The\tconsensus\tthat\tcounts\tis\tthe\tconsensus\tof\treasonable\tcomprehensive\tdoctrines. But\t this\t means\t that\t Rawls\u2019s\t strategy\t of\t building\t only\t on\t common\t ground\t turns out\t to\t be\t not\t that\t different\t from\t the\t first\t \u2018stand\t up\t and\t fight\t for\t liberal\t values\u2019\t \u2013","strategy.\tWhen\tit\tcomes\tto\tthe\tcrunch,\twhen\the\tcomes\tup\tagainst\tthose\twho\tdo\tnot, in\t fact,\t endorse\t liberal\t values\t in\t politics,\t he\t has\t to\t put\t them\t beyond\t the\t pale\t by describing\t them\t as\t \u2018unreasonable\u2019.\t That\t may\t be\t the\t right\t thing\t to\t say.\t But\t it\t is pushing \t thing s\t a\t bit\t to \t say\t that\t and\t simultaneo usly\t claim\t that\t the\t state\t o ne\t favo ur s builds\ton\tground\tthat\tis\t\u2018common\u2019\tto\tthe\tdoctrines\tendorsed\tby\tthe\tcitizens\tit\tis\tto govern.\t To\t those\t who\t do\t not\t buy\t in\t to\t the\t overlapping\t consensus\t whose comprehensive\tdoctrines\tthemselves\tinvolve\ta\tdenial\tof\tthe\tsupreme\timportance\tof liberal\t values\t in\t politics\t \u2013\t even\t Rawlsian\t liberalism\t will\t look\t like\t \u2018just\t another sectarian\t doctrine\u2019.\t This\t is\t why\t the\t multicultural\t nature\t of\t today\u2019s\t liberal democracies,\tthe\tfact\tthat\tthe\tsocieties\twe\tlive\tin\tare\tcharacterized\tby\tsuch\tdeep\tand far-reaching\tdoctrinal\tdifferences,\tposes\ta\tmajor\tjustificatory\tproblem\tfor\tliberals \u2013\tas,\tof\tcourse,\tit\tdoes\tfor\teverybody\telse. What\t has\t any\t of\t this\t to\t do\t with\t community?\t Well,\t one\t strand\t in\t the\t defence\t of liberalism\tas\titself\ta\ttheory\tof\t\u2018community\u2019\tdepended\ton\tthe\tidea\tthat\tit\trecognized the\t significance\t of\t communal\t relations,\t shared\t values\t and\t a\t common\t identity. Recall\t the\t suggestion\t that\t citizens\t of\t a\t liberal\t state\t share\t a\t common\t aim\t and\t are jointly\tengaged\tin\tits\tpursuit.\tOnce\twe\tacknowledge\tthe\tpresence\tof\tcitizens\twho\tdo not\t share\t the\t aim,\t and\t experience\t the\t requirements\t of\t the\t liberal\t state\t as\t the enforced\t imposition\t of\t majority\t opinion,\t that\t happy\t description\t looks\t rather\t less apt.\tFor\tliberals\twanting\tto\tregard\tthe\tstate\titself\tas\ta\tcommunity,\tmulticulturalism can\t be\t a\t problem.\t It\t brings\t with\t it\t the\t kind\t of\t incompatibility\t of\t world-view\t that cannot\t easily\t be\t reconciled\t with\t the\t idea\t of\t political\t community\t as\t the\t collective realization\tof\tshared\tvalues. Furthermore,\t the\t liberal\t state\t may\t itself\t be\t regarded\t as\t inimical\t to\t a\t more particularistic\t or\t localized\t form\t of\t community.\t This\t will\t happen\t whenever\t that state\u2019s\tcommitment\tto\tindividual\tfreedom\tand\tautonomy\trequires\tit\tto\tinterfere\twith a\t co mmunity\u2019s\t o wn\t pr efer r ed\t way\t o f\t do ing \t thing s.\t Sho uld\t member s\t o f\t a\t r elig io n be\tpermitted\tto\traise\ttheir\tchildren\tas\tthey\twish,\tprotecting\tthem\tfrom\tthe\tspiritually impoverished\t and\t grotesquely\t sexualized\t mass\t culture?\t Or\t is\t the\t state\t justified\t in protecting\tthe\tautonomy\tof\tits\t(future)\tcitizens\tby\trequiring\tthat\tthey\tbe\teducated\tin such\ta\tway\tthat\tthey\tare\tgenuinely\t(not\tjust\tformally)\tfree\tto\tleave\tthat\tcommunity if\t they\t wish?\t Can\t a\t cultur al\t g r o up\t \u2013\t say\t the\t Fr anco pho ne\t co mmunity\t in\t Quebec\t \u2013 deny\tindividuals\tliving\twithin\t\u2018its\u2019\tcity\tthe\tfreedom\tto\tadvertise\ttheir\tbusinesses\tin English?\t Can\t Native\t American\t communities\t collectively\t decide\t to\t prevent\t their individual\t members\t from\t selling\t land\t to\t outsiders?\t Putting\t it\t in\t general\t terms, should\t we\t tolerate\t groups\t that\t regard\t the\t survival\t and\t flourishing\t of\t a\t particular culture\t as\t more\t important\t than\t individual\t autonomy?\t Or\t should\t we\t uphold\t the rights\tof\tall\tcitizens\tto\trevise\tand\tquestion\ttraditional\tcultural\tpractices?\tFor\tthose whose\t primary\t focus\t is\t on\t the\t value\t of\t religious,\t ethnic,\t linguistic\t or\t cultural co mmunities,\t the\t liber al\t state\t may\t lo o k\t mo r e\t like\t the\t enemy\t than\t the\t embo diment","of\t\u2018community\u2019. Communitarian\targuments\tin\tpolitical\tphilosophy\thave\tfocused\ton\tthe\tmoral\tand political\tsignificance\tof\tgroups\tor\tcollectives.\tThey\tpose\tdeep\tchallenges\tto\tviews conventionally\t associated\t with\t liberalism.\t But\t it\t would\t be\t wrong\t to\t think\t that liberals\t deny\t that\t significance\t altogether.\t One\t fruit\t of\t the\t communitarian\t critique has\tbeen\tan\tincreased\tsensitivity\tto\tthe\tway\tin\twhich\tindividual\twell-being\tdepends o n\t g r o up-level\t facto r s,\t such\t as\t cultur e.\t The\t Canadian\t philo so pher \t Will\t Kymlicka, for\t example,\t has\t argued\t that\t the\t very\t autonomy\t that\t liberals\t care\t so\t much\t about depends\t upon\t cultural\t membership,\t on\t individuals\t being\t brought\t up\t within\t a r easo nably\t r ich\t and\t secur e\t cultur al\t str uctur e.\t So meo ne\t r aised\t within\t a\t co mmunity that\tis\twithering\taway\tbefore\ther\teyes\tlacks\tmeaningful\toptions\tand\twill\tbe\tunable to\t make\t informed\t and\t reflective\t judgements\t about\t how\t she\t is\t to\t live\t her\t life.\t On this\tview,\tliberals\thave\treason\tto\thelp\tminority\tgroups,\tsuch\tas\tthe\tInuit\tor\tFrench Canadians,\tprotect\ttheir\tcommunity\u2019s\tway\tof\tlife\twhere\tthey\tface\tan\tunfair\tstruggle against\tthe\tdominant\tculture. On\t the\t one\t hand,\t then,\t liberals\t are\t concerned\t to\t protect\t individuals\t from\t too much\tcommunity\t\u2013\tfrom\tpractices\tthat\tstifle\tthe\tindividual\u2019s\tfreedom\tto\tchoose\tfor herself\t how\t she\t lives\t her\t life.\t On\t the\t other\t hand,\t liberals\t may\t acknowledge\t the importance\t of\t cultural\t self-preservation\t and\t accord\t minority\t groups\t collective rights\tagainst\tthe\tmajority\twhere\tthat\tis\trequired\tby\ttheir\tcommitment\tto\tindividual autonomy.\t The\t multicultural\t nature\t of\t the\t advanced\t democracies\t poses\t deep challenges\t to\t the\t liberal\t framework,\t challenges\t that\t I\t have\t no\t more\t than\t sketched out\t here.\t Freeing\t liberalism\t from\t communitarian\t misunderstanding\t and misrepresentation\tallows\tus\tto\tsee\tmore\tclearly\tthe\tforce\tand\tsignificance\tof\tthose challenges,\tand\tto\tconfront\twhat\tis\tgenuinely\tvaluable\tin\tcommunitarian\tthinking.","2\tLiberalism,\tthe\tnation-state\tand\tglobal\tjustice The\t fact\t that\t today\u2019s\t liberal\t democracies\t are\t multicultural,\t with\t citizens\t holding deeply\tdivergent\tvalues\tand\tdoctrines,\tpresents\tone\tproblem\tfor\tliberal\ttheory\tthat has\t been\t put\t into \t fo cus\t by\t co mmunitar ian\t wr iting s.\t Ano ther \t pr o blem\t co ncer ns\t the sco pe\t o f\t liber al\t pr inciples.\t Even\t if\t states\t wer e\t cultur ally\t ho mo g eneo us,\t we\t wo uld still\tneed\tto\tknow\twhy\tliberal\tprinciples\tof\tjustice\tapply\tonly\twithin\tstates\tand\tnot across\thumanity\tas\ta\twhole. Leaving\taside\tthe\tissue\tof\tmulticulturalism,\ta\tdefence\tof\tliberalism\tmight\trun\tas follows:\t far\t from\t being\t hostile\t or\t inimical\t to\t community,\t liberalism\t can\t itself\t be understood\tas\ta\ttheory\tof\tcommunity.\tIt\tallows\tparticular\t(religious,\tethnic,\tartistic) communities\t to\t flourish\t within\t the\t framework\t of\t a\t state\t built\t upon\t respect\t for individual\tautonomy.\tMore\timportantly,\tthe\tstate\titself\tis\ta\tcommunity:\ta\tcollective enterprise\tin\twhich\tcitizens\tjointly\tachieve\tthe\tcommon\tgood\tof\ta\tjust\tsociety.\tIn\ta properly\t functioning\t liberal\t society,\t we\t regard\t our\t \u2018citizenship\t identity\u2019\t as sufficiently\timportant\tthat\twe\tare\tprepared\tto\tact\tsolidaristically,\tpursuing\tour\tself- interest\tand\tour\tconception\tof\tthe\tgood\tonly\tto\tthe\textent\tthat\tthis\tis\tcompatible\twith doing\tjustice\tto\t\u2013\trespecting\tand\tpromoting\tthe\tautonomy\tof\t\u2013\tour\tfellow\tcitizens. People\u2019s\t shared\t identity\t of\t \u2018free\t and\t equal\t citizen\u2019\t must\t take\t priority\t over\t their mo r e\t par ticular istic\t r elig io us,\t ethnic\t o r \t cultur al\t identities.\t And\t it\t must\t tr ump\t their eco no mic\t self-inter est:\t tho se\t who \t wo uld\t be\t better \t o ff\t witho ut\t it\t must\t be\t willing \t to endorse\thowever\tmuch\tredistributive\ttaxation\tis\tdemanded\tby\tjustice. This\t \u2018liber al\t community\u2019\t r esponse\t cer tainly\t r efutes\t some\t of\t the\t mor e\t confused objections\t to\t \u2018liberal\t individualism\u2019.\t But\t the\t sophisticated\t communitarian\t is unlikely\t to\t be\t satisfied.\t In\t her\t view,\t this\t response\t cheats:\t it\t trades\t on\t a\t hidden pr emise\t o f\t just\t the\t kind\t that\t she\t r eg ar ds\t as\t impo r tant\t \u2013\t a\t pr emise\t abo ut\t the\t mo r al sig nificance\t o f\t par ticular \t co mmunities,\t abo ut\t the\t impo r tance\t o f\t peo ple\t identifying with\t their\t particular\t community.\t \u2018True,\u2019\t she\t might\t say,\t \u2018a\t liberal\t state\t can\t be presented\tas\ta\tpolitical\tcommunity\tin\tthe\tway\tyou\toutline,\ta\tcollective\tenterprise\tin which\t citizens\t jointly\t provide\t the\t common\t good\t of\t justice\t to\t one\t another.\t But no thing \t in\t yo ur \t acco unt\t so \t far \t explains\t why\t tho se\t who \t happen\t to \t live\t in\t the\t same state\t \u2013\t under\t the\t same\t political\t rules\t \u2013\t owe\t justice\t to\t one\t another\t rather\t than\t to everybody\telse.\tNor\tdo\tI\tthink\tit\tat\tall\tlikely\tthat\tthe\tidea\tof\tliberal\tcitizenship,\ton its\t own,\t can\t motivate\t people\t to\t act\t justly.\t In\t both\t these\t ways,\t from\t both\t a philosophical\t and\t a\t practical\t point\t of\t view,\t your\t story\t is\t not\t self-sufficient.\t You must\t be\t relying\t on\t some\t more\t particularistic\t claim\t about\t the\t moral\t and motivational\tsignificance\tof\tthe\tparticular\tcommunity\tin\twhich\tpeople\tlive.\u2019 The\tproblem,\tthen,\tis\tthat\tthe\tliberal\targument\tseems\tto\tdepend\ton\tthe\timportance of\tthe\tindividual\u2019s\tcapacity\tfor\tautonomy.\tIt\tis\tthis\tfeature\tof\tmy\tfellow\tcitizens\tthat I\t am\t required\t to\t respect\t and\t promote.\t But\t it\t isn\u2019t\t only\t my\t fellow\t citizens\t who","possess\t this\t capacity.\t So\t too,\t presumably,\t do\t all\t other\t human\t beings.\t In\t that\t case, why\t do \t I\t o we\t auto no my-pr o mo ting \t r edistr ibutive\t taxatio n\t to \t disadvantag ed\t fello w Brits\tbut\tnot\tto\tthe\tstarving\tof\tthe\tThird\tWorld?\tThere\tis\ta\ttheoretical\tgap\tbetween the\t abstract\t and\t universal\t terms\t of\t the\t liberal\t argument\t and\t its\t presentation\t as\t a theory\t of\t citizenship,\t applicable\t to\t relations\t between\t members\t of\t particular political\tcommunities. Here\twe\tapproach\tfrom\tanother\tangle\tsome\tof\tthe\tissues\tbroached\tat\tthe\tend\tof Part\t1\t(pp.\t48\u201354),\twhen\tI\ttalked\tabout\tthe\tdifference\tbetween\t\u2018social\u2019\tand\t\u2018global\u2019 justice.\t(Readers\twanting\tto\tthink\tseriously\tabout\tthose\tissues\twould\tdo\twell\tto\tgo back\t and\t co nnect\t up\t the\t two \t discussio ns.)\t We\t need\t to \t be\t car eful.\t Fo r \t a\t star t,\t tho se liberals\twho\tthink\tthat\twe\towe\tmore\textensive\tduties\tto\tour\tfellow\tcitizens\tthan\twe do\tto\tother\thuman\tbeings\twill\tprobably\taccept\tthat\twe\talso\towe\tsome\tduties\tto\tthose others.\tAn\tadvocate\tof\tliberal\tcommunity\tat\tthe\tlevel\tof\tthe\tstate\tis\tunlikely\tto\tdeny that\t human\t being s\t as\t such\t have\t any\t claims\t ag ainst\t o ne\t ano ther.\t She\t will\t pr o bably insist\tonly\tthat\tI\towe\tmore\tto\tmy\tfellow\tcitizens\tthan\tI\tdo\tto\tothers.\t(Perhaps,\tin\tthe case\tof\tforeigners,\tI\tam\tobliged\tonly\tto\trespect\ttheir\tnegative\trights\tand\tto\thelp\tto avert\t extreme\t suffering,\t whereas\t I\t owe\t members\t of\t my\t own\t political\t community compliance\twith\tmore\tdemanding\tdistributive\tprinciples.)\tIt\tis\talso\timportant\tto\tbe clear\t that\t some\t liberals\t do\t indeed\t extend\t the\t \u2018liberal\t community\u2019\t argument\t to\t the world\tas\ta\twhole.\tThese\tare\t\u2018cosmopolitans\u2019,\tphilosophers\twho\tthink\tthat\tprinciples o f\t justice,\t and\t co nceptio ns\t o f\t co mmunity,\t must\t apply\t g lo bally.\t They\t may\t keep\t the concept\t of\t \u2018citizenship\u2019,\t but\t will\t radically\t alter\t its\t implications\t by\t talking\t about \u2018world\tcitizenship\u2019,\tdemanding\tthat\tdistributive\tjustice\tapply\tnot\tjust\twithin\texisting states\tbut\tacross\tthe\tworld\tas\ta\twhole. It\u2019s\t also\t worth\t making\t explicit\t that\t even\t cosmopolitans\t can\t accept\t that\t we\t owe some\tduties\tto\tthe\tmembers\tof\tour\tpolitical\tcommunity,\tto\tour\tfellow\tcitizens,\tthat we\tdon\u2019t\towe\tto\teverybody\telse.\tAfter\tall,\tas\tcitizens\twe\tare\tcollectively\tengaged\tin the\t process\t of\t governing\t ourselves,\t of\t making\t laws,\t self-imposed\t constraints\t on what\twe,\tas\tindividuals,\tmight\totherwise\tchoose\tto\tdo.\tIf\tI\tam\tobliged\tto\tobey\tthose laws,\tthen\tpresumably\tthe\tobligation\tis\towed\tnot\tto\tmankind\tas\ta\twhole,\tbut\tto\tthose who,\twith\tme,\tmade\tthe\tlaws,\tand\tare\tsimilarly\tobliged\tto\tcomply\twith\tthem.\tThere are\t lots\t of\t reasons\t why\t somebody\t might\t obey\t a\t law\t of\t their\t state.\t Because\t they don\u2019t\t want\t to\t get\t caught\t breaking\t it.\t Because\t they\t think\t it\t is\t the\t right\t thing\t to\t do anyway.\t (Most\t people\t don\u2019t\t murder\t others\t because\t murder\t is\t wrong,\t not\t because ther e\t is\t a\t law\t ag ainst\t it.)\t But\t so me\t peo ple\t so metimes\t o bey\t the\t law\t fo r \t the\t specific reason\tthat\tthey\tbelieve\tthey\towe\tit\tto\ttheir\tfellow\tcitizens\tto\tdo\tso.\tThere\tis\ta\tlot\tto be\t said\t abo ut\t why\t they\t mig ht\t owe\t it\t to \t them.\t A\t chapter \t on\t what\t philosopher s\t call \u2018political\tobligation\u2019\twould\tsay\tsome\tof\tit.\tHere\tthe\tpoint\tis\tsimply\tthat\tthis\tkind\tof obligation\t \u2013\t the\t obligation\t to\t obey\t the\t laws\t of\t one\u2019s\t state\t \u2013\t if\t it\t exists,\t is\t indeed plausibly\towed\tto\tone\u2019s\tfellow\tcitizens\tand\tnot\tto\tanybody\telse.\tCosmopolitans\tcan","accept\tthis.\tWhat\tthey\tdon\u2019t\taccept\tis\tthat\tthe\trights\tand\tduties\tof\tdistributive\tjustice are\tclaimed\tagainst,\tand\towed\tto,\tthe\tmembers\tof\tone\u2019s\tpolitical\tcommunity. As\tI\tsaid,\twe\tneed\tto\tbe\tcareful.\tNow\tlet\u2019s\tget\tback\tto\tthose\tliberals\twho\tdo\tthink that,\t though\t we\t owe\t some\t duties\t to\t all\t humans,\t we\t owe\t more\t demanding\t justice- based\tduties\tto\tour\tfellow\tcitizens.\tRespect\tfor\tthe\tcapacity\tfor\tautonomy\ton\tits\town can\u2019t\tbe\tenough\tto\texplain\tthe\tdifference.\tThere\tmust\tbe\tsomething\tmorally\tspecial about\t common\t citizenship,\t membership\t of\t the\t same\t state,\t that\t explains\t why\t they owe\t each\t other\t more.\t On\t this\t view,\t it\t is\t membership\t of\t the\t same\t political community\t \u2013\t not\t the\t \u2018community\t of\t humanity\u2019\t \u2013\t that\t determines\t people\u2019s\t more substantial\t rights\t against,\t and\t duties\t to,\t one\t another.\t We\t don\u2019t\t have\t much\t trouble with\tthe\tidea\tthat\tmembers\tof\ta\tfamily\tare\tin\tthe\tkind\tof\tparticularistic\trelationship that\t generates\t special\t moralities.\t We\t feel\t obligations\t to\t help\t our\t parents,\t children and\tsiblings\tin\tways\tthat\tgo\tbeyond\tthe\thelp\twe\towe\tto\tothers.\tBlood\tis\tthicker\tthan water.\t Something\t analogous\t applies\t in\t the\t case\t of\t membership\t of\t the\t same\t state. The\t bonds\t of\t citizenship\t are\t weaker,\t doubtless,\t than\t those\t we\t have\t to\t our\t family, but\tstronger\tthan\tthose\twe\thave\tto\tmankind\tas\ta\twhole. But\thow\tis\tthe\tstate,\tthe\tpolitical\tcommunity,\tlike\ta\tfamily?\tAnd\tcan\tthe\tabstract and\tuniversal\tliberal\tideals\tof\tautonomy,\tequality\tand\tfreedom\tgenerate\tthe\tkind\tof identification\t with\t others,\t the\t sense\t of\t solidarity\t or\t community,\t that\t will\t indeed motivate\t people\t to\t discharge\t the\t duties\t that\t liberals\t believe\t they\t owe\t to\t one ano ther ?\t Her e\t we\t tur n\t to war ds\t the\t seco nd\t str and\t in\t the\t co mmunitar ian\t o bjectio n\t \u2013 the\t suspicio n\t that,\t if\t \u2018liber al\t co mmunity\u2019\t is\t to \t wo r k,\t if\t peo ple\t ar e\t to \t be\t willing \t to restrain\tthe\tpursuit\tof\ttheir\tself-interest\tfor\tthe\tsake\tof\ttreating\ttheir\tfellow\tcitizens justly,\tthey\tmust\tshare\ta\tsense\tof\tcommon\tidentity\tthat\tis\tricher\tand\tmore\tinspiring than\t that\t o f\t mer e\t \u2018citizen\t o f\t the\t same\t state\u2019.\t If\t it\u2019s\t tr ue\t that\t I\t car e\t abo ut\t my\t fello w citizens\tmore\tthan\tI\tcare\tabout\tother\thuman\tbeings,\tthat\u2019s\tnot\tbecause\twe\tsubscribe to\tthe\tsame\tabstract\tprinciples,\tand\tare\tjointly\tinvolved\tin\tthe\tproject\tof\tsustaining\ta liber al\t state.\t It\u2019s\t because\t my\t fello w\t citizens\t ar e\t also \t my\t fello w\t co untr ymen\t (and\t - women).\t It\t is\t because\t they\t are\t British\t like\t me,\t with\t a\t shared\t language,\t shared traditions,\t a\t common\t history,\t that\t they\t are\t special\t to\t me\t \u2013\t special\t in\t the\t required sense\tthat\tI\tidentify\twith\tthem\tenough\tto\taccept\tthe\trights\tand\tduties\tthat\tthe\tliberal sto r y\t tr ies\t to \t acco unt\t fo r \t mer ely\t in\t ter ms\t o f\t co mmo n\t citizenship.\t It\t is\t o ur \t shar ed national\t identity,\t our\t identity\t as\t British\t citizens,\t not\t the\t idea\t of\t citizenship\t in\t the abstract,\t that\t is\t needed\t to\t do\t the\t motivational\t work.\t (Of\t course,\t the\t idea\t that\t the British\tdo\thave\ta\tcommon\tidentity\t\u2013\tand,\tto\tthe\textent\tthat\tthey\tdo,\twhere\tit\tcomes from\t and\t how\t it\t is\t sustained\t \u2013\t is\t itself\t controversial.\t In\t practice,\t communal identities\t are\t multiple,\t overlapping,\t and\t constantly\t being\t reshaped,\t partly\t by political\t developments\t \u2013\t such\t as\t the\t European\t Union.\t The\t politics\t of\t collective identity\tis\thugely\tcomplicated.\tMy\taim\there\tis\tsimply\tto\tlay\tout\tthe\tgeneral\tshape\tof the\tissue\tas\tit\tarises\tin\tpolitical\tphilosophy.)","Although\t it\t presents\t itself\t in\t universalistic\t and\t abstract\t terms,\t the\t idea\t of\t a \u2018liberal\t community\u2019\t is,\t the\t objection\t goes,\t premised\t on\t something\t more particularistic,\t something\t more\t like\t the\t family.\t As\t with\t the\t family,\t our\t sense\t of ourselves\tas\tmembers\tof\ta\tnation\tis\tbased\ton\ta\tbelief\tin\ta\tcommon\thistory.\tIt\tgives us\t a\t sense\t of\t who\t we\t are.\t And\t it\t generates\t particularistic\t moral\t ties.\t We\t identify with\t our\t state,\t our\t political\t community,\t because,\t or\t to\t the\t extent\t that,\t it\t coincides with\t our\t nation.\t If\t our\t nation\t and\t our\t state\t do\t not\t coincide,\t we\t might\t well\t try\t to change\t things\t so\t that\t they\t did.\t (The\t conflicts\t in\t Europe\t since\t the\t collapse\t of\t the Soviet\t Union\t have\t been\t mainly\t about\t people\t who\t identify\t with\t one\t another\t as members\t of\t the\t same\t nation\t looking\t to\t make\t state\t and\t nation\t coincide.)\t On\t the communitarian\taccount,\tthen,\tthe\tidea\tof\ta\t\u2018liberal\tcommunity\u2019\tis\tnot\tself-sufficient. One\t cannot\t account\t for\t the\t special\t moral\t relationship,\t or\t expect\t people\t to\t be mo tivated\t as\t eg alitar ian\t liber als\t want\t them\t to \t be,\t witho ut\t invo king \t a\t co nceptio n\t o f community\tthat\tgoes\tbeyond\tthe\tbare\tidea\tof\tdoing\tjustice\tto\tone\u2019s\tfellow\tcitizens. Peo ple\u2019s\t identities\t must\t be\t \u2018co nstituted\u2019\t by\t so mething \t mo r e\t par ticular istic\t than\t the abstract\t idea\t of\t \u2018citizenship\u2019.\t Which\t is\t the\t kind\t of\t thing\t communitarians\t were saying\tall\talong. As\t with\t everything\t else\t in\t this\t book,\t this\t is\t the\t beginning,\t not\t the\t end,\t of\t the story.\t Some\t liberal\t theorists\t accept\t that\t social\t justice\t should\t be\t pursued\t within particular\t states,\t and\t that\t fellow\t citizens\t owe\t special\t justice-based\t duties\t to\t one another.\tThey\tmay\talso\trecognize\tthat\tachieving\tjustice\twill\tnecessitate\tstate\taction to\tpromote\ta\tsense\tof\tpatriotism,\tcountering\tthe\tdivisive\tinfluence\tof\tclass,\tculture and\t all\t the\t o ther \t thing s\t that\t tend\t to \t enco ur ag e\t sectio nal\t thinking .\t So me\t pur sue\t the cosmopolitan\t route.\t They\t accept\t that\t people\t may\t feel\t closer\t to\t their\t compatriots than\tto\tforeigners,\tbut\tthink\tthat\tthis\tis\ta\tfeeling\tthat\tought\tto\tbe\ttranscended.\tJust\tas people,\t though\t often\t tempted,\t should\t not\t show\t too\t much\t favouritism\t to\t their childr en\t \u2013\t avo iding \t nepo tism\t and\t o bser ving \t pr inciples\t o f\t equality\t and\t impar tiality when\tfilling\tjobs,\tfor\texample\t\u2013\tso\tthey\tshould\tnot\tallow\tthe\tmere\tfact\tof\tcommon nationality\ttoo\tmuch\tweight\tin\ttheir\tmoral\tdeliberation,\tperhaps\tnone\tat\tall.\tIn\tany case,\t isn\u2019t\t nationality\t usually\t a\t myth\t \u2013\t an\t \u2018imagined\t community\u2019\t \u2013\t constructed, sometimes\t deliberately,\t to\t foster\t a\t sense\t of\t common\t identity\t where\t none\t would otherwise\texist?\tMoreover,\twe\tall\tknow\thow\tdangerous\tthe\tidea\tof\tnationhood\tcan be.\t(It\u2019s\tsignificant\tthat\trecent\tattempts\tto\trevive\tthe\tmoral\tsignificance\tof\tthe\tnation talk\tabout\t\u2018nationality\u2019\tnot\t\u2018nationalism\u2019.\tContemporary\tadvocates\tof\tnationality\tare very\t keen\t to\t distance\t themselves\t from\t the\t fanatic\t excesses\t of\t \u2018blood\t and\t soil\u2019 nationalism.)\tNotice,\talso,\tthat\teven\tcosmopolitans\tcan\targue\tthat\tit\tmakes\tsense\tfor the\t wo r ld\t to \t be\t o r g anized\t into \t discr ete\t states,\t that\t such\t states\t wo r k\t best\t when\t they coincide\t with\t national\t groupings,\t and\t that\t members\t of\t such\t states\t may\t be\t best placed\tto\thelp\tone\tanother.\tThis\twill\tbe\tthe\tcase\tif\tthey\taccept\tthe\timpracticability\tof a\t sing le\t \u2018wo r ld\t state\u2019,\t think\t that\t the\t way\t to \t g et\t clo sest\t to \t g lo bal\t justice\t is\t fo r \t each","state\t to\t look\t after\t its\t own\t members,\t and\t believe\t that\t those\t who\t share\t a\t common national\t culture\t are\t more\t likely\t to\t do\t so.\t Here,\t nationality,\t and\t the\t world\t being divided\tinto\tindividual\tstates\tconstituted\tby\tgroups\tof\tcitizens\twith\tshared\tidentities, ar e\t valued\t instr umentally\t \u2013\t as\t a\t means\t to \t a\t differ ent\t g o al\t \u2013\t no t\t because\t peo ple\t do really\t owe\t their\t fellow\t citizens,\t or\t their\t fellow\t countrymen\t (and\t -women),\t more than\tthey\towe\tanybody\telse. What\tgenerates\ta\tsense\tof\tcommon\tidentity?\tWhat\tleads\tpeople\tto\tfeel\tthe\tkind\tof solidarity\ttowards\tone\tanother\tthat\tis\trequired\tfor\tthem\tto\tbe\tmotivated\tto\ttreat\teach other\t in\t accordance\t with\t the\t demanding\t principles\t of\t redistributive\t liberalism? Wars\tare\tgood.\tIt\tis\tno\taccident\tthat\tsupport\tfor\tthe\tBritish\twelfare\tstate\tpeaked\tjust after\tthe\tSecond\tWorld\tWar.\tThere\u2019s\tnothing\tlike\ta\twar\tto\tbuild\ta\tsense\tof\tcommon purpose,\tof\tbeing\tin\tthe\tsame\tboat,\tand\tto\tgenerate\tthe\tkind\tof\tinteraction\tbetween people\tthat\tbreaks\tdown\tdivisive\tsocial\tboundaries.\tAs\tthat\tfeeling\thas\tweakened\t\u2013 and\t as\t society\t has\t become\t more\t pluralistic\t and\t diverse,\t less\t culturally homogeneous\t \u2013\t so\t the\t case\t for\t some\t kind\t of\t national\t or\t civic\t service\t has\t grown stronger.\t It\t is\t easy\t now\t for\t people\t not\t to\t feel\t themselves\t to\t be\t members\t of\t their state,\t to\t identify\t essentially\t with\t more\t local\t and\t particularistic\t groupings\t \u2013 ethnicity,\t religion,\t lifestyle.\t Requiring\t them\t to\t devote\t a\t year\t of\t their\t lives\t to something\t conceived\t and\t presented\t as\t \u2018national\t service\u2019\t \u2013\t even\t if\t this\t were discharged\tat\tthe\tlocal\tlevel\t\u2013\tmight\tfoster\tin\tthem\ta\tsense\tof\t\u2018citizenship\tidentity\u2019. This\t would,\t of\t course,\t restrict\t their\t freedom.\t Some\t liberals\t might\t object\t to\t it\t on those\t grounds.\t But\t liberals\t don\u2019t\t just\t care\t about\t freedom,\t they\t care\t also\t about justice.\tIf\tpeople\twill\tbe\tmotivated\tto\tact\tjustly\tonly\ttowards\tthose\twith\twhom\tthey share\t a\t sense\t of\t common\t identity,\t and\t if\t compulsory\t national\t service\t would\t be conducive\t to\t that\t sense,\t then\t the\t liberal\t should\t be\t willing\t to\t accept\t the\t freedom- restricting\timplication.\t(For\tthe\tcosmopolitan,\ton\tthe\tother\thand,\tthe\tpromotion\tof national\tor\tcitizenship\tidentity\tis\tlikely\tto\tseem\tillegitimately\tparochial\t\u2013\tpart\tof\tthe problem,\tnot\tthe\tsolution.)","Conclusion Political\t communitarians\t may\t feel\t that\t this\t discussion\t has\t missed\t the\t point.\t It\t has focused\t on\t the\t dispute\t (or\t apparent\t dispute)\t between\t liberalism\t and\t its philosophically\tcommunitarian\tcritics.\tIt\thas\texplained\thow\tliberalism\tsees\tthe\tstate as\t a\t community.\t And\t it\t has\t suggested\t a\t way\t in\t which\t this\t conception\t may\t be parasitic\t on\t a\t sense\t of\t common\t identity\t \u2013\t arguably\t threatened\t by\t deep\t cultural diversity\t\u2013\tthat\tthe\tliberal\ttends\tto\tleave\tout\tof\tthe\tstory.\tFor\tsome,\tthis\twill\tall\tseem to o \t abstr act\t and\t g ener al.\t The\t kind\t o f\t co mmunity\t they\t ar e\t inter ested\t in\t is\t smaller - scale,\t more\t particularistic\t and\t more\t local\t \u2013\t the\t family,\t the\t church,\t the neighbourhood.\tI\thave\tsaid\tthat\tliberalism\thas\ta\tproblem\texplaining\twhy\twe\tshould care\t especially\t about\t our\t fellow\t citizens\t rather\t than\t humanity\t as\t a\t whole.\t But\t it might\tbe\tobjected\tthat\tonly\tan\tout-of-touch\tphilosopher\tcould\tthink\tthat\tthat\twas\tthe pr o blem.\t The\t r eal\t issue\t is\t that\t the\t state\t o r \t natio n\t is\t alr eady\t to o \t diffuse\t and\t distant for\t people\t to\t feel\t a\t sense\t of\t belonging\t and\t fellow\t feeling\t of\t the\t kind\t that\t will prevent\tthem\tsliding\tinto\tindividualism\tof\tthe\twrong\t\u2013\talienated,\tegoistic\t\u2013\tkind. On\t this\t view,\t the\t redistributive\t state\t justified\t by\t appeal\t to\t the\t idea\t of\t common citizenship\t is\t not\t motivationally\t sustainable.\t For\t a\t time,\t after\t the\t war,\t there\t was indeed,\tin\tthe\tUK,\ta\tsense\tof\tnational\tsolidarity\tand\tcommon\tpurpose,\trealized\tin\t\u2013 and\tto\tsome\textent\tfostered\tby\t\u2013\tthe\twelfare\tstate.\tBut\tthat\tcouldn\u2019t\tlast.\tMoreover, because\t it\t too k\t o ver \t the\t functions\t of\t local\t and\t voluntar y\t associations,\t the\t welfar e state\t under mined\t the\t mo r e\t par ticular istic\t fo r ms\t o f\t co mmunity\t that\t ar e\t better \t able, in\tthe\tlong\trun,\tto\tprovide\tpeople\twith\ta\tsense\tof\tthemselves\tas\tmore\tthan\tisolated individuals.\t The\t individual\u2019s\t conception\t of\t herself\t as\t \u2018citizen\u2019\t does\t indeed\t imply member ship\t of\t a\t par ticular \t community,\t but\t the\t community\t it\t implies\t member ship of\t \u2013\t the\t state\t \u2013\t is\t too\t bureaucratic,\t impersonal\t and\t distant\t to\t counter\t the disinteg r atio n\t o f\t so ciety\t into \t individuals,\t o r \t at\t best\t nuclear \t families,\t seeking \t their own\tprivate\tself-interest,\tunhappy\tbecause\tthey\tfeel\tthat\ttheir\tlives\tlack\tthe\tsense\tof meaning\t and\t purpose\t that\t comes\t from\t involvement\t in\t political\t activity\t and participation\t in\t what\t political\t theorists\t call\t \u2018civil\t society\u2019.\t National\t politics\t is\t too r emo te\t to \t be\t o f\t inter est.\t Po litics\t must\t be\t r etur ned\t to \t its\t pr o per,\t human,\t level\t if\t we are\tto\tcombat\tgrowing\talienation\tand\tapathy.\tThis\tkind\tof\tcommunitarian\twants\tthe reinvigoration\t of\t what\t the\t Irish\t conservative\t Edmund\t Burke\t (1729\u201397)\t called\t the \u2018little\tplatoons\u2019,\tforms\tof\tcivil\tassociation\tbetween\tthe\tfamily\tand\tthe\tstate.\tThat\tand the\tstrengthening\tof\tlocal\tcommunities,\tthe\trestoration\tof\ta\t\u2018sense\tof\tcommunity\u2019\tin individual\t neighbourhoods:\t community\t policing,\t community\t schools,\t community politics,\tcommunity\tdevelopment,\tcommunity\tactivism. Few\twould\tdeny\tthe\tvalue\tof\tthe\tindividual\u2019s\tsense\tof\tbelonging,\tof\tidentification with\tand\tattachment\tto\tothers\tbeyond\ther\timmediate\tfamily.\tBut\twe\tare\there\tmoving in\t the\t dir ectio n\t o f\t empir ical\t questio ns,\t better \t answer ed\t by\t the\t po litical\t so cio lo g ist","than\t the\t political\t philosopher.\t What\t kinds\t of\t belonging,\t identification\t and attachment\t are\t sustainable,\t under\t what\t conditions,\t and\t how\t do\t they\t relate\t to\t one another?\t Are\t they\t mutually\t reinforcing?\t Do\t people\t who\t leave\t the\t private\t sphere sufficiently\tto\tget\tinvolved\tin\tlocal\tcommunity\tinitiatives\ttend\talso\tto\ttake\tthe\twider view\tmore\tgenerally?\tIn\tthat\tcase,\ttheir\tmembership\tof\tand\tparticipation\tin\tthis\tkind of\t community-based\t activity\t form\t no\t obstacle\t to\t their\t manifesting\t solidarity\t and fraternity\t at\t the\t level\t of\t the\t state\t also.\t Are\t local\t associations\t schools\t for citizenship?\t Or\t do\t local\t and\t national\t community\t pull\t in\t opposing\t directions? Community\tis\tabout\tmembership\tand\tinclusion.\tBut\tthat\tmeans\tit\tis\talso\tabout\tnon- membership\t and\t exclusion.\t Local\t neighbourhoods\t are\t relatively\t homogeneous, both\tculturally\tand\teconomically.\tThose\tof\tsimilar\trace,\treligion\tand\twealth\ttend\tto live\tclose\tto\tone\tanother.\tIf\tit\tdoes\tindeed\tmatter,\tas\tit\tmust\tto\tnational\tpoliticians, that\tthere\tbe\ta\tfeeling\tof\tcommon\tidentity\tacross\tthe\tcitizenry\tas\ta\twhole\t\u2013\tso\tthat\tit makes\tsense\tto\ta\trich\tCatholic\tin\tone\tarea\tthat\tsome\tof\tthe\tmoney\tshe\tearns\tin\tthe market\t be\t redistributed\t to\t an\t unemployed\t Muslim\t in\t another\t \u2013\t we\t must\t not\t lose sight\t of\t the\t potentially\t divisive\t and\t unequalizing\t consequences\t of\t too\t much emphasis\t on\t the\t local\t community,\t or\t on\t other\t identities\t that\t might\t tend\t to\t pull people\taway\tfrom\ttheir\tcommon\tcitizenship. Meanwhile,\tas\t\u2018globalization\u2019\tgathers\tpace\tand\ttechnological\tdevelopments\tmake it\t easier\t to\t identify\t with\t people\t across\t the\t world,\t the\t idea\t that\t even\t the\t state\t or natio n\t r epr esents\t a\t \u2018co mmunity\u2019\t o f\t any\t g r eat\t mo r al\t sig nificance\t can\t itself\t star t\t to seem\t out\t dated.\t If\t individuals\t are\t to\t transcend\t their\t particular\t selfish\t interests, taking\t the\t wider\t view\t and\t adopting\t a\t more\t other-regarding\t perspective,\t then\t it\t is the\t \u2018community\t of\t humanity\u2019\t that\t should\t be\t the\t proper\t subject\t of\t their\t concern. Indeed,\tfor\tmany\tof\tmy\tstudents,\tmotivated\tabove\tall\tby\tenvironmental\tissues,\tthat \u2018co mmunity\u2019\t extends\t no t\t o nly\t beyo nd\t their \t fello w\t citizens\t o r \t fello w\t natio nals,\t but also\tbeyond\tthe\tliving.\tIt\tcompasses\talso\tfuture\tgenerations. Further\treading Shlo mo \t Aviner i\t and\t Avner \t de-Shalit\u2019s\t (eds.),\t Communitarianism\t and\t Individualism (Oxford\t University\t Press\t 1992)\t helpfully\t gathers\t together\t bite-sized\t chunks\t from the\tleading\tprotagonists\tin\tthe\tso-called\tliberal\u2013communitarian\tdebate.\tIt\tis\tthe\tmost efficient\t way\t to \t r ead\t mo st\t o f\t the\t key\t pr imar y\t texts\t o n\t the\t philo so phical\t side.\t Jo hn Rawls\u2019s\tpolitical\tliberalism,\tand\tJoseph\tRaz\u2019s\tperfectionist\tliberalism\tare\tset\tout\tin Political\tLiberalism\t(Columbia\tUniversity\tPress\t1993)\tand\tThe\tMorality\tof\tFreedom (Oxford\t University\t Press\t 1986)\t respectively.\t Stephen\t Mulhall\t and\t Adam\t Swift\u2019s Liberals\t and\t Communitarians\t (2nd\t edn,\t Blackwell\t 1996)\t provides\t chapter-length acco unts\t o f\t their \t po sitio ns,\t as\t well\t as\t fuller \t discussio n\t o f\t the\t o ther \t issues\t to uched on\t here.\t Their\t \u2018Rawls\t and\t Communitarianism\u2019,\t in\t Samuel\t Freeman\t (ed.),\t The Cambridge\t Companion\t to\t Rawls\t (Cambridge\t University\t Press\t 2002),\t is\t a\t useful","overview.\tDaniel\tBell\u2019s\tCommunitarianism\tand\tits\tCritics\t(Oxford\tUniversity\tPress 1993)\tis\twritten\tas\ta\tdialogue\tset\tin\ta\tParis\tbrasserie,\tand\tis\tcorrespondingly\tfun\tto read. On\tthe\tpolitical\tcommunitarian\tside,\tthe\tkey\ttext\tis\tAmitai\tEtzioni\u2019s\tThe\tSpirit\tof Community\t (Cr o wn\t Publisher s\t 1993),\t which\t includes\t \u2018T he\t Respo nsive\t Co mmunity Platform\u2019.\t Elizabeth\t Frazer \u2019s\t The\t Problems\t of\t Communitarian\t Politics\t (Oxford University\t Press\t 1999)\t is\t difficult,\t but\t a\t great\t attempt\t to\t integrate\t and\t disentangle the\t bewildering\t variety\t of\t things\t that\t get\t called\t \u2018communitarianism\u2019. http:\/\/co mmunitar iannetwo r k.o r g \t takes\t yo u\t to \t \u2018T he\t Co mmunitar ian\t Netwo r k\u2019.\t Will Kymlicka\u2019s\t Multicultural\t Odysseys:\t Navigating\t the\t New\t International\t Politics\t of Diversity\t(Oxford\t University\t Press\t 2007)\t is\t an\t excellent\t collection\t of\t essays\t by\t a leading\t philosopher\t of\t multiculturalism.\t Culture\t and\t Equality\t (Polity\t 2000),\t by Brian\tBarry,\tis\tan\tentertainingly\tscathing\tcritique\tof\tmuch\tthat\tgets\tsaid\tin\tthe\tname of\t multiculturalism,\t and\t is\t itself\t subject\t to\t entertainingly\t scathing\t criticism\t by contributors\tto\tMulticulturalism\tReconsidered\t (Polity\t 2002),\t edited\t by\t Paul\t Kelly. Among\t Barry\u2019s\t critics\t is\t Bhikhu\t Parekh\t whose\t Rethinking\t Multiculturalism: Cultural\t Diversity\t and\t Political\t Theory\t is\t well\t worth\t a\t read\t (2nd\t edn,\t Palgrave Macmillan\t 2005).\t David\t Miller \u2019s\t Citizenship\t and\t National\t Identity\t (Polity\t 2000) provides\tsophisticated\tbut\tclear\tdiscussions\tof\twhat\tit\tsays\tit\u2019s\ta\tbout.","Part\t5","Democracy Democracy\treally\tis\tthe\t\u2018motherhood\tand\tapple\tpie\u2019\tof\tpolitics.\tWho\tobjects\tto\tit? The\tfact\tthat\tall\tsorts\tof\tdoubtful\tregimes\tcall\tthemselves\tdemocratic\ttestifies\tto\tthe moral\tand\trhetorical\tforce\tof\tthe\tidea\tthat\tpolitical\tpower\tshould\tbe\tin\tthe\thands\tof the\t people\t (Greek\t kratos\t =\t \u2018power \u2019,\t demos\t =\t \u2018people\u2019;\t so,\t literally,\t \u2018people power \u2019).\tIndeed,\tthe\tconventional\twisdom\thas\tit\tthat\tit\u2019s\tuniversally\tvaluable,\tgood fo r \t ever ybo dy.\t So \t g o o d,\t indeed,\t that\t so me\t states\t have\t co me\t to \t r eg ar d\t expo r ting \t it as\ta\tlegitimate\tgoal\tof\tforeign\tpolicy. Meanwhile\t \u2018democracy\u2019\t has\t become\t rather\t blunt\t as\t an\t ideal,\t because\t it\t is\t often invoked\t as\t a\t catch-all\t term\t referring\t to\t any\t aspect\t of\t a\t political\t system,\t or\t of\t a society,\tthat\tthe\tspeaker\tthinks\tgood.\tSometimes,\tof\tcourse,\tthis\tattempt\tto\tprofit\tby its\t rhetorical\t appeal\t is\t so\t blatant\t as\t to\t become\t ridiculous.\t There\t can\u2019t\t have\t been many\t who\t agreed\t with\t the\t insistence\t of\t the\t pro-hunt\t lobby\t that\t the\t law\t to\t ban hunting\twith\thounds\tdeprived\tthe\tBritish\tpeople\tof\ta\tdemocratic\tright.\tPerhaps\tthere is\t a\t right\t to\t hunt,\t and\t perhaps\t the\t government\t did\t wrong\t not\t to\t recognize\t it.\t But was\t that\t law,\t announced\t in\t a\t manifesto\t and\t car r ied\t by\t a\t major ity\t of\t the\t House\t of Commons,\tundemocratic?\tOr\tthink\tabout\tthe\talleged\tright\tto\tcarry\tguns\tin\tthe\tUS. One\tmay\taccept\tor\treject\tthat\tright,\tand\tone\u2019s\tgrounds\tfor\tdoing\tso\tmay\tor\tmay\tnot invoke\tthe\tConstitution.\tBut\tit\u2019s\thard\tto\tsee\thow\ta\tsociety\tthat\tallows\tits\tmembers\tto carry\tguns\tis\tmore\tdemocratic\tthan\tone\tthat\t(democratically)\tdecides\tnot\tto. This\tuniversal\treverence\tfor\tdemocracy,\tand\tthis\ttendency\tto\tcall\tall\tgood\tthings democratic,\t is\t rather\t ironic.\t Today\t it\t seems\t obvious,\t a\t matter\t of\t simple\t common sense,\tthat\tdemocracy\tis\ta\tgood\tthing.\tFor\tmost\tof\thuman\thistory\tthe\topposite\thas been\tthe\tcase.\tIt\twas\tobvious\tto\tany\tclear-thinking\tperson\tthat\tdemocracy,\tshould\tit ever\tcome\tabout,\twould\tbe\ta\tdisaster.\tHow\ton\tearth\tcould\tanyone\tthink\tit\tdesirable to\t give\t power\t to\t the\t people\t \u2013\t to\t the\t unruly,\t ignorant,\t self-interested\t mob?\t The people\t were\t poor,\t and\t there\t were\t lots\t of\t them.\t Any\t state\t foolish\t enough\t to\t put power\tin\ttheir\thands\twould\tquickly\tself-destruct\tas\tthe\twealth\tand\tcivilization\tbuilt up\t over\t centuries\t by\t an\t aristocratic\t elite\t were\t destroyed\t in\t a\t short-term\t feeding frenzy\tby\tthe\tuneducated\tmasses. That\thistory\tshould\tgive\tus\tpause.\tDon\u2019t\tworry.\tI\u2019m\tnot\tgoing\tto\ttry\tto\tpersuade readers\t that\t they\t don\u2019t\t really\t believe\t in\t democracy\t after\t all.\t But,\t given\t this widespread\t and\t rather\t unthinking\t endorsement,\t it\t does\t seem\t appropriate\t to\t spark","some\tanti-democratic\tintuitions,\tif\tonly\tto\tclarify\twhy\texactly\twe\twant\tit\t\u2013\tand\thow much\t of\t it\t we\t want.\t For\t some,\t the\t reason\t why\t the\t pessimists\t were\t wrong\t \u2013\t the reason\t why\t democracy\t did\t not\t lead\t to\t destruction\t \u2013\t is\t that\t we\t don\u2019t\t have\t all\t that much\t of\t it.\t For\t others,\t though,\t the\t problem\t is\t quite\t the\t reverse.\t What\t needs exposing\t is\t excessive\t complacency\t about\t the\t extent\t to\t which\t Western\t \u2018liberal democracies\u2019\trealize\tthe\tvalues\tof\tdemocracy.\tFor\tthem,\tthe\tdiscussion\tthat\tfollows may\t r eveal\t ho w\t far \t we\t ar e\t fr o m\t enjo ying \t member ship\t o f\t a\t g enuinely\t demo cr atic state. One\timportant\tissue\t\u2013\tthe\tscope\tof\tdemocratic\tprinciples\t\u2013\twill\tnot\tbe\taddressed. I\t explained\t in\t the\t introduction\t that\t this\t book\t would\t focus\t on\t politics\t in\t the conventional\tsense\tthat\tlinks\tit\tto\tthe\trelation\tbetween\tcitizens\tand\tstates.\tThat\tfocus will\t be\t to o \t nar r o w\t fo r \t so me,\t and\t ther e\t ar e\t indeed\t impo r tant\t issues\t abo ut\t whether democratic\t thinking\t should\t apply\t more\t widely.\t Within\t states,\t perhaps\t it\t should apply\tto\tworkplaces,\tfirms,\tfamilies.\tA\tfully\tdemocratic\tsociety,\tperhaps,\twould\tsee democratic\tvalues\tpermeating\tour\tunderstandings\tand\tpractices\tof\tthe\tinstitutions\tof civil\t society.\t Beyond\t states,\t there\t has\t recently\t been\t a\t good\t deal\t of\t interest\t in\t the idea\t of\t global\t or\t cosmopolitan\t democracy\t (analogous\t to\t global\t or\t cosmopolitan justice\tdiscussed\tat\tthe\tend\tof\tPart\t1.)\tPolicies\tadopted\tin\tone\tcountry\tcan\thave\thuge impacts\ton\tmembers\tof\tothers\t(think\tabout\tenvironmental\tissues,\tfor\texample)\tand it\u2019s\tplausible\tto\tthink\tthat\tdecisions\tshould\tbe\tmade\tby\tall\tthose\twhose\tinterests\twill be\taffected\tby\tthem.\tSo\tthere\tare\tobviously\tbig\tand\timportant\tquestions\tabout\twho exactly\tconstitutes\tthe\t\u2018demos\u2019\tin\t\u2018democracy\u2019\t(including,\tincidentally,\tmembers\tof future\tgenerations\twho\taren\u2019t\taround\tto\tspeak\tfor\tthemselves.)\tAlthough\tI\tcan\u2019t\tget into\tthem,\tI\thope\tat\tleast\tthat\tthis\tchapter\twill\thelp\treaders\twhen\tthey\tcome\tto\tthink about\tthese\tother\tquestions.","What\tis\tdemocracy? \u2018Rule\t o f\t the\t peo ple,\t by\t the\t peo ple,\t fo r \t the\t peo ple.\u2019\t The\t definitio n\t o f\t US\t Pr esident Abraham\tLincoln\t(1809\u201365)\tis\ta\tgood\tplace\tto\tstart\t\u2013\tas\tlong\tas\twe\u2019re\tclear\tthat\tit\u2019s the\t\u2018by\tthe\tpeople\u2019\tbit\tthat\tis\timportant.\tAll\tsystems\tof\tgovernment\tare\tgoing\tto\tbe government\t of\t the\t people;\t it\t is\t the\t people\t who\t are\t being\t governed.\t And,\t in principle,\t a\t benevolent\t dictator\t or\t an\t enlightened\t aristocracy\t could\t rule\t for\t the people.\tTrue,\twe\tmight\tthink\tthose\tscenarios\ta\tbit\timprobable.\tA\tdemocratic\tregime is\t per haps\t mo r e\t likely\t to \t r ule\t fo r \t the\t peo ple\t than\t a\t dictato r ship\t o r \t an\t ar isto cr acy, and\t that\t might\t be\t a\t good\t reason\t for\t preferring\t democracy.\t But\t what\t one\t is\t then preferring\tis\tprecisely\trule\tby\t the\t people\t \u2013\t a\t political\t system\t in\t which\t the\t people govern\tthemselves. If\t this\t is\t what\t democracy\t means,\t then\t one\t is\t immediately\t confronted\t by\t a problem.\tEven\tthose\tpolities\tthat\thave\tthe\tbest\tclaim\tto\tcall\tthemselves\tdemocratic can\thardly\tbe\tseen\tas\tpure\texamples\tof\tcollective\tself-rule.\tWhat\treally\thappens\tis that\tevery\tnow\tand\tagain\tthere\tare\telections\tduring\twhich\ta\tsubset\tof\tthe\tpopulation votes\tto\tdecide\twhich\tmicroscopically\tsmall\tsubset\tof\tthe\tpopulation\tis\tgoing\tto\tbe making\t the\t decisions\t for\t the\t next\t few\t years.\t The\t winners\t of\t the\t election\t have typically\t attr acted\t o nly\t a\t mino r ity\t o f\t tho se\t who \t actually\t vo te,\t and\t an\t even\t smaller pr o po r tio n\t o f\t the\t electo r ate\t as\t a\t who le.\t These\t electio ns\t happen\t in\t a\t co ntext\t wher e much\t of\t the\t media\t is\t owned\t by\t a\t wealthy\t elite\t with\t clear\t political\t interests\t of\t its own\tand\twhere\tpolitical\tparties\tare\tfree\tto\tspend\ton\tadvertising\twhatever\tpeople\tare willing\tto\tgive\tthem.\tIs\tthis\tway\tof\tgoverning\treally\t\u2018people\tpower \u2019? The\tobvious\tresponse\tto\tthis\tscepticism\tis\tto\tpreach\tpracticality.\tGenuine\t\u2018rule\tby the\t peo ple\u2019\t mig ht\t have\t been\t viable\t in\t small\t city-states,\t wher e\t citizens\t r eally\t co uld assemble\tto\tdeliberate\tcollectively,\tand\tas\tequals,\ton\ttheir\tcollective\taffairs,\tbut\tthe size\t and\t complexity\t of\t today\u2019s\t polities\t make\t this\t kind\t of\t direct\t democracy\t quite unrealistic.\t Few\t see\t any\t prospect\t of\t getting\t away\t from\t indirect\t or\t representative democracy\tand\treturning\tpower\tto\tthe\tpeople\tin\tany\tthoroughgoing\tway.\tThe\ttime that\tpolitical\tdecision-making\twould\ttake,\tand\tthe\texpertise\tthat\tit\twould\trequire\tto do\tit\tat\tall\twell,\tmake\tthat\ta\tnon-starter.\tThe\tissue\ton\tthe\tpolitical\tagenda\tis\thow\tto get\t people\t to\t bother\t to\t vote\t once\t every\t four\t or\t five\t years.\t In\t that\t context,\t any sug g estio n\t o f\t a\t mo ve\t to war ds\t mo r e\t dir ect\t and\t eg alitar ian\t fo r ms\t o f\t demo cr acy\t (at least\t on\t the\t national\t scale)\t can\t look\t utopian.\t The\t citizens\t of\t ancient\t Athens\t may have\t been\t able\t to\t assemble\t and\t deliberate,\t but\t they\t were\t effectively\t gentlemen\t of leisure\t \u2013\t it\t was\t women\t and\t slaves\t who\t did\t the\t work\t \u2013\t and\t the\t issues\t they\t were deciding\t wer e\t far \t simpler \t and\t less\t technical\t than\t those\t co nfr o nting\t contempor ar y polities. It\u2019s\t important\t to\t keep\t principled\t considerations\t separate\t from\t feasibility constraints.\tIt\u2019s\tespecially\tso\tin\tthe\tcase\tof\tdemocracy,\tbecause\tit\u2019s\tso\thard\tto\tdo.\tOf","co ur se,\t in\t the\t end\t we\t have\t to \t g o \t fo r \t the\t best\t r ealizatio n\t o f\t demo cr acy\t that\t we\t can get,\t the\t best\t that\u2019s\t within\t our\t feasibility\t set.\t There\t will\t be\t a\t lot\t of\t disagreement about\twhat\tis\tand\tis\tnot\tfeasible.\tMuch\tpolitical\targument\tis\tabout\twhat\tcan\tbe\tmade to\twork\t(rather\tthan\tabout\twhat\twould\tbe\tgood\tif\tit\tcould\tbe\tmade\tto\twork).\tThere\u2019s nothing\twrong\twith\tthat.\tBut,\twhen\twe\tdo\tpolitical\tphilosophy,\tit\u2019s\timportant\tnot\tto worry\tabout\tfeasibility\tconstraints\ttoo\tearly\tin\tthe\tprocess,\tas\tit\twere,\timportant\tnot to\tlet\tthem\tinterfere\twith\tour\tunderstanding\tof\twhere\tthe\tvalues\tlie.\tFirst\twe\tshould think\t about\t democratic\t values\t and\t how,\t in\t principle,\t they\t might\t best\t be\t realized. Then\t we\t should\t look\t at\t the\t world\t and\t work\t out\t what\t kind\t of\t democracy\t is\t most likely\tto\tget\tclosest\tto\tthe\tideal. The\t key\t point\t about\t \u2018rule\t by\t the\t people\u2019\t is\t that\t it\t is\t a\t procedure\t for\t making po litical\t decisio ns.\t It\t dir ects\t o ur \t attentio n\t away\t fr o m\t their \t co ntent\t to \t the\t way\t laws are\tmade\t\u2013\tin\tparticular,\tto\twho\tmakes\tthem.\tConceiving\tdemocracy\tas\ta\tdecision- making\tprocedure\tis\ta\tgood\tway\tof\tkeeping\tclear\tabout\tthe\tvarious\targuments\tfor and\tagainst\tit.\tIs\tit\tindeed\tgood\tthat\tthe\tpeople\tthemselves\tshould\tmake\tthe\tlaws\tthey are\t to\t live\t under?\t We\t can\t divide\t answers\t to\t that\t question\t into\t two\t kinds.\t A procedure\t can\t be\t valued\t instrumentally,\t because\t of\t the\t outcomes\t it\t is\t likely\t to produce.\tOr\tit\tcan\tbe\tvalued\tintrinsically,\tfor\tits\town\tsake,\ton\tgrounds\tindependent o f\t the\t o utco mes\t it\t tends\t to \t pr o duce.\t Per haps\t demo cr acy\t is\t g o o d\t fo r \t bo th\t kinds\t o f reason.\t Perhaps\t it\t tends\t to\t produce\t good\t decisions,\t or\t stable\t government,\t or enlightened\t citizens,\t and\t it\t respects\t people\u2019s\t right\t to\t participate\t in\t collective decision-making\t or\t is\t the\t fairest\t way\t of\t distributing\t political\t power.\t Perhaps\t not. Much\tof\tthis\tchapter\twill\tbe\texploring\tthese\tdifferent\tkinds\tof\tjustification. Regarding\t democracy\t as\t a\t procedure\t throws\t up\t a\t possible\t tension\t between democracy\tand\tpolitical\tphilosophy.\tThe\tphilosopher\ttries\tto\tdeliver\tright\tanswers, whereas\t the\t democrat\t wants\t us\t all\t to\t contribute\t equally\t to\t delivering\t an\t answer. That\t tension\t finds\t its\t clearest\t expression\t in\t Plato\u2019s\t Republic,\t where\t the\t father\t of philosophy\t explicitly\t rejects\t democracy\t in\t favour\t of\t rule\t by\t a\t philosopher-king. (That\u2019s\t obviously\t a\t terrible\t idea.\t Plato\t (Greek,\t c.427\u2013347\t bc)\t thought\t that\t only philo so pher s\t po ssessed\t the\t exper tise\t safely\t to \t g uide\t the\t ship\t o f\t state\t into \t har bo ur. The\tones\tI\tknow\thave\tproblems\tremembering\twhere\tthey\tleft\ttheir\tbicycles.)\tWhat we\t want,\t according\t to\t Plato,\t are\t wise\t political\t decisions,\t correct\t answers\t to\t the tho r ny\t questio ns\t that\t co nfr o nt\t even\t r elatively\t small\t and\t ho mo g eneo us\t Gr eek\t city- states.\t But,\t for\t many,\t democracy\t isn\u2019t\t about\t making\t wise\t political\t decisions.\t It\u2019s about\t the\t people\t making\t their\t own\t decisions.\t The\t legitimacy\t of\t law,\t for\t many demo cr ats,\t depends\t no t\t o n\t its\t being \t r ig ht,\t but\t o n\t its\t being \t a\t pr o per \t expr essio n\t o f what\t the\t people\t want,\t of\t the\t popular\t will\t \u2013\t whether\t or\t not\t that\t would\t stand\t up\t to philosophical\tscrutiny. Here\twe\tare\ttalking\tabout\tthe\tdifference\tbetween\tcorrectness\tand\tlegitimacy.\tAnd one\timportant\tthing\tthat\tphilosophers\ttry\tto\toffer\tis\ta\tcorrect\ttheory\tof\tlegitimacy.","What\t is\t it\t that\t makes\t democratic\t decisions\t indeed\t legitimate?\t What\t kinds\t of responsiveness\tto\tthe\tpopular\twill\tare\tin\tfact\tnecessary\tor\tsufficient\tfor\ta\tlaw\tto\tbe justified?\t These\t are\t unavoidably\t philosophical\t questions.\t The\t legitimacy\t of\t a decision\t can\t indeed\t be\t independent\t of\t its\t rightness\t \u2013\t but\t there\t can\t still\t be\t a\t right answer\t about\t what\t makes\t a\t decision\t legitimate.\t And,\t of\t course,\t one\t can\t perfectly well\thave\tviews\tabout\twhat\tmakes\ta\tdecision\tlegitimate\tand\tabout\twhat\twould\tbe\tthe right\tdecision\tfor\ta\tpolitical\tcommunity\tto\ttake\ton\tany\tparticular\tissue.\tMost\tof\tus have\tboth\tof\tthese.\tSo\tphilosophers,\tand\teverybody\telse,\tcan\tquite\tcoherently\targue and\tvote\tfor\ta\tparticular\toutcome\tas\tthe\tright\tanswer\twhile\talso\tinsisting\tthat\tonly some\t ways\t of\t making\t such\t decisions\t are\t legitimate\t \u2013\t and\t insisting\t that\t decisions made\t that\t way\t remain\t legitimate\t even\t if\t they\t are\t incorrect.\t The\t core\t issue\t in democratic\t theory\t is\t why\t it\t is\t valuable\t that\t people,\t or\t \u2018the\t people\u2019,\t should\t be involved\tin\tmaking\tthe\trules\tto\twhich\tthey\tare\tsubject.","Degrees\tof\tdemocracy As\t a\t way\t in,\t let\u2019s\t think\t about\t the\t various\t ways\t in\t which\t the\t democraticness\t of\t a political\t system\t is\t a\t matter\t of\t degree.\t It\u2019s\t tempting\t to\t think\t that\t either\t a\t state\t is democratic\t or\t it\t isn\u2019t.\t In\t fact,\t however,\t exploring\t the\t different\t ways\t in\t which decisions,\t or\t states,\t might\t be\t less\t or\t more\t democratic\t helpfully\t forces\t us\t to\t get clear\ton\twhat\twe\tmean\twhen\twe\ttalk\tabout\tdemocracy\tin\tthe\tfirst\tplace.\tOne\tlesson that\t some\t learn\t from\t the\t exercise\t is\t that,\t even\t though\t democracy\t is\t indubitably\t a good\tthing,\tthey\tdo\tnot\twant\ttoo\tmuch\tof\tit. Her e,\t then,\t ar e\t fo ur \t dimensio ns\t alo ng \t which\t it\t seems\t that\t so cieties,\t o r \t po litical systems,\t or\t the\t decisions\t produced\t by\t those\t systems,\t can\t be\t considered\t less\t or more\t\u2018democratic\u2019.","1\tDirectness\tor\tindirectness\tof\tthe\tdecision Decision-making\tis\tdirectly\tdemocratic\twhen\tthe\tpeople\tas\ta\twhole\tvote\tdirectly\ton the\t issues\t under\t consideration.\t It\t is\t indirectly\t democratic\t when\t they\t vote\t for representatives\twho\tmake\tthe\tdecisions\ton\ttheir\tbehalf.\tThe\tUS\tand\tthe\tUK\toperate systems\tof\trepresentative\tdemocracy.\tOccasionally\tthe\tUK\tholds\ta\treferendum\ton\ta particular\tissue,\twhere\tthe\tmatter\tis\tfelt\tto\tbe\tsufficiently\timportant\tor\tcontroversial to\t require\t a\t direct\t mandate\t from\t the\t people\t as\t a\t whole\t for\t the\t decision\t to\t be legitimate.\t Decisions\t made\t by\t referendum,\t where\t the\t people\u2019s\t will\t is\t expressed directly,\t are\t in\t an\t obvious\t sense\t more\t \u2018democratic\u2019\t than\t those\t made\t by r epr esentatives.\t That\t is\t no t,\t o f\t co ur se,\t to \t say\t that\t they\t ar e\t better \t in\t any\t way.\t They may\t not\t be\t better\t decisions.\t Referenda\t may\t not\t even\t be\t a\t better\t way\t of\t making decisions.\tBut\tthey\tare\ta\tmore\tdemocratic\tway. The\t indir ectness\t o f\t a\t decisio n\t lessens\t the\t extent\t to \t which\t the\t pr esent\t will\t o f\t the majority\t of\t the\t voters\t controls\t political\t outcomes,\t and\t the\t extent\t to\t which\t a decision\t is\t direct\t or\t indirect\t is\t itself\t scalar\t (\u2018scalar \u2019=\t \u2018not\t all-or-nothing\t but admitting\tof\tdegree\u2019).\tImagine\ta\tpolity\twhere\tthe\telectorate\tas\ta\twhole\tvotes\tfor\tan assembly\t which\t votes\t for\t an\t assembly\t which\t votes\t for\t an\t assembly\t \u2026\t The\t more levels\t of\t mediation\t between\t the\t people\t themselves\t and\t the\t decisions\t that\t emerge, the\tless\tdirectly\tdemocratic,\tand\tthe\tless\tdemocratic,\tthe\tsystem. It\u2019s\t worth\t thinking\t about\t the\t relationship\t between\t \u2018direct\t democracy\u2019\t and \u2018participatory\tdemocracy\u2019.\tImportant\tstrands\tin\tdemocratic\ttheory\tare\tsuspicious\tof representative\tgovernment\tand\tinsist\ton\tthe\timportance\tof\ta\tgenuinely\tparticipatory political\t system,\t where\t the\t people\t as\t a\t whole\t engage\t in\t political\t debate\t and\t are directly\t involved\t in\t political\t decision-making\t \u2013\t rather\t than\t merely\t choosing representatives,\t who\t decide\t things\t on\t their\t behalf,\t every\t few\t years.\t Discussion\t of this\tapproach\ttypically\tfocuses\ton\tits\tfeasibility\trather\tthan\tits\tdesirability.\t\u2018Well,\tit would\t be\t nice\t if\t we\t could\t all\t assemble\t and\t deliberate\t and\t decide\t issues\t for ourselves,\t but\t of\t course\t that\u2019s\t completely\t impractical\t in\t the\t modern\t world.\t The issues\tare\tfar\ttoo\tcomplex\tto\tbe\tdecided\tby\tordinary\tvoters\tand\tin\tany\tcase\tpeople nowadays\tjust\tdon\u2019t\thave\tthe\ttime\tto\tdevote\tto\tpolitical\taffairs.\u2019 But\t the\t r eality\t is\t that,\t g iven\t wher e\t we\t have\t g o t\t to \t with\t info r matio n\t techno lo g y, direct\tdemocracy\tis\tperfectly\tfeasible.\tIt\twould\tnot\tbe\thard\tto\tequip\tall\thouseholds with\t computer\t terminals\t through\t which\t all\t people\t of\t voting\t age\t could\t directly register\ttheir\tvotes.\tWe\tcould\thave\tan\telected\tParliament\tto\tdebate\tissues\tand\tframe legislation,\t but\t all\t proposed\t laws\t would\t be\t put\t to\t the\t people\t as\t a\t whole\t for endorsement.\t In\t effect,\t there\t would\t be\t a\t referendum\t on\t all\t decisions\t that\t are currently\tmade\tinto\tlaw\tby\trepresentatives.\tCall\tthis\t\u2018teledemocracy\u2019.\tSuch\ta\tsystem would\t be\t a\t more\t direct\t form\t of\t democracy\t than\t we\t have\t at\t the\t moment.\t And\t it would,\ton\tthe\taccount\toff\tered\there,\tbe\tmore\tdemocratic.","But\twould\tit\tqualify\tas\ta\tparticipatory\tdemocracy?\tThat\tis\tnot\tso\tclear.\tIt\u2019s\tquite possible\t that\t voters\t in\t a\t teledemocracy\t would\t get\t to\t decide\t directly\t what\t the\t laws ar e\t witho ut\t any\t par ticipatio n\t in\t po litics\t beyo nd\t the\t clicking \t o f\t a\t co mputer \t mo use. They\t do n\u2019t\t need\t to \t be\t info r med\t abo ut\t the\t issues;\t they\t do n\u2019t\t need\t to \t have\t hear d\t o r engaged\t in\t any\t debate.\t They\t don\u2019t\t need\t to\t have\t done\t any\t of\t the\t things\t typically regarded\t as\t important\t by\t theorists\t of\t participatory\t democracy.\t Of\t course,\t one might\t hope\t that\t making\t democracy\t more\t direct\t would\t also\t lead\t to\t its\t becoming mo r e\t par ticipato r y\t in\t these\t o ther \t senses.\t Given\t a\t g r eater \t say\t in\t po litics,\t it\t is\t o ften argued,\tcitizens\twill\tbecome\tmore\tinvolved,\tengaged\tand\tactive;\tcurrent\tlow\tlevels of\t interest\t in\t politics\t are\t the\t result\t of\t the\t way\t decisions\t are\t made\t and\t can\t be expected\t to \t chang e\t o ver \t time\t as\t o r dinar y\t peo ple\t ar e\t tr usted\t mo r e.\t Maybe.\t But\t the conceptual\t point\t stands:\t the\t directness\t of\t a\t decision-making\t process\t is\t a\t rather formal\tproperty,\ttelling\tus\tnothing\tabout\tthe\tinput\tto\tdecisions\tother\tthan\tthat\tit\tis\ta direct\t expression\t of\t the\t people\u2019s\t will.\t Advocates\t of\t participatory\t democracy typically\t want\t something\t more\t or\t other\t than\t direct\t democracy\t \u2013\t they\t want\t an eng ag ed\t citizenr y\t g etting \t invo lved\t in\t po litics\t in\t ways\t that\t g o \t beyo nd\t r eg ister ing \t a vote. Distinguishing\t in\t this\t way\t between\t direct\t democracy\t and\t participatory demo cr acy\t may\t make\t the\t fo r mer \t less\t attr active.\t If\t it\t wo uld\t indeed\t act\t as\t a\t catalyst for\t political\t involvement\t of\t other\t kinds,\t then\t perhaps\t moves\t towards teledemocracy\twould\tbe\ta\tgood\tthing.\tBut\ttaken\ton\tits\town,\tand\tgiven\tcurrent\tlow levels\t of\t political\t awareness,\t many\t would\t be\t doubtful\t about\t the\t merits\t of\t such\t a way\t of\t making\t decisions.\t I\t don\u2019t\t trust\t \u2018the\t people\u2019\t to\t use\t their\t interactive\t vote wisely\twhen\tchoosing\tbetween\twould-be\tpopstars\tin\tTV\tshows;\tit\u2019s\tgot\tto\tbe\trisky letting\t them\t make\t laws\t by\t similar\t means.\t Suppose\t the\t choice\t were\t between\t (a) genuine\t but\t short-lived\t participation\t in\t choosing\t representatives\t who\t then\t make laws\tand\t(b)\tdirect\tvotes\ton\tlaws\tvia\tcomputer\tterminal\tby\tcitizens\twith\tlittle\tor\tno kno wledg e\t o r \t inter est.\t T he\t latter \t may\t be\t mo r e\t \u2018demo cr atic\u2019,\t but\t the\t fo r mer \t wo uld be\tbetter.","2\tAccountability\tof\trepresentatives Assuming\t we\t have\t some\t kind\t of\t representative\t system\t \u2013\t and\t remember\t that\t even my\tteledemocracy\thas\trepresentatives\tto\tframe\tthe\tlegislation\ton\twhich\twe\tall\tvote \u2013\tthere\tis\tan\tissue\tabout\tthe\textent\tto\twhich\tthose\trepresentatives\tare\taccountable\tto their\t electorates.\t At\t one\t extreme,\t we\t could\t imagine\t a\t system\t where\t all representatives\twere\tsubject\tto\timmediate\trecall.\tAs\tsoon\tas\tthey\tdid\tanything\ttheir constituents\t didn\u2019t\t like,\t those\t constituents\t could\t haul\t them\t back\t and\t replace\t them with\t other s\t mor e\t r esponsive\t to\t the\t popular \t will.\t This\t would\t give\t constituents\t full democratic\tcontrol\tover\ttheir\trepresentatives.\tThe\trepresentatives\twould\teffectively be\tturned\tinto\tdelegates,\tmandated\tto\tvote\tparticular\tways.\tAt\tthe\tother\textreme,\twe could\t imagine\t a\t system\t where\t representatives\t were\t indeed\t elected,\t but\t they\t were elected\tfor\tlife.\tOnce\tin\tpost,\tthey\twould\thave\tcomplete\tindependence,\tand\twould\tbe fr ee\t to \t decide\t issues\t as\t they\t saw\t fit,\t witho ut\t any\t fur ther \t demo cr atic\t check\t o n\t their authority.\tThat\tprocedure\twould\tbe\tmore\tdemocratic\tthan\tone\tin\twhich\tthere\tis\tno vote\t on\t who\t gets\t to\t make\t the\t decisions,\t but\t less\t democratic\t than\t one\t in\t which representatives\t are\t accountable\t to\t those\t who\t elected\t them.\t In\t between\t these\t two extremes\t lies\t something\t like\t our\t current\t system,\t which\t we\t may\t think\t of\t as retrospective\trecall:\tvoters\tget\tthe\tchance\tto\tcast\tjudgement\ton\ttheir\trepresentatives at\t electio ns,\t and\t thr o w\t the\t r ascals\t o ut\t if\t they\t do n\u2019t\t like\t them\t \u2013\t electing \t a\t differ ent set\tof\trascals\tin\ttheir\tplace. Here\t too\t we\t might\t not\t want\t too\t much\t democracy.\t A\t system\t in\t which representatives\t act\t as\t delegates,\t mandated\t to\t vote\t along\t lines\t fixed\t in\t advance\t by their\t constituents,\t or\t in\t which\t they\t are\t subject\t to\t immediate\t recall\t (i.e.,\t sacked\t as so o n\t as\t they\t do \t anything \t their \t co nstituents\t do n\u2019t\t like),\t is\t ver y\t demo cr atic,\t but\t no t obviously\t very\t sensible.\t For\t many,\t the\t reason\t to\t have\t representatives\t in\t the\t first place\t is\t that\t they\t ar e\t likely\t to\t be\t in\t a\t better \t position\t to\t make\t good\t decisions\t than their\t constituents\t are.\t This\t was\t certainly\t the\t view\t of\t the\t Irish\t philosopher\t (and politician)\t Edmund\t Burke\t (1729\u201397).\t Addressing\t the\t voters\t of\t Bristol\t in\t 1774, Burke\tfamously\ttold\tthem:\t\u2018Your\trepresentative\towes\tyou,\tnot\this\tindustry\tonly,\tbut his\t judgment;\t and\t he\t betrays\t instead\t of\t serving\t you\t if\t he\t sacrifices\t it\t to\t your opinion.\u2019\t But\t why\t might\t one\t think\t a\t representative\u2019s\t judgement\t likely\t to\t be\t any better\tthan\tthat\tof\tthe\tpeople\twho\tvoted\tfor\thim? A\t conventional\t answer\t to\t that\t question\t holds\t that\t the\t whole\t point\t of parliamentary\tdebate\t(from\tparler,\tFrench\tfor\t\u2018to\ttalk\u2019,\tso\ta\tparliament\tis\tnot\tbadly translated\tas\ta\ttalking\tshop)\tis\tthat\tit\ttends\tto\tyield\twiser\tjudgements\tthan\twould\tbe achieved\t by\t the\t mere\t aggregation\t of\t pre-reflective\t preferences.\t Representatives mandated\tto\tvote\ta\tcertain\tway,\tor\tliable\tto\tbe\trecalled\tas\tsoon\tas\tthey\tdepart\tfrom their\tconstituents\u2019\twishes,\tare\thardly\tgoing\tto\tbe\tengaging\tin\ta\tcareful,\tdisinterested attempt\tto\tfilter\tout\tbad\targuments\tand\tact\ton\tgood\tones.\tOK,\tgiven\tthe\tway\tparties","and\t political\t patronage\t works,\t one\t can\t be\t sceptical\t about\t the\t extent\t to\t which existing\tparliaments\tfollow\tthis\tkind\tof\tdeliberative\tideal.\tBut\tone\twould\thave\tto\tbe extremely\t cynical\t about\t contemporary\t politics\t not\t to\t acknowledge\t any\t epistemic value\t in\t the\t kind\t of\t debate\t that\t goes\t on\t among\t representatives\t in\t parliamentary systems.\t(\u2018Epistemic\u2019\t=\t\u2018involving\tknowledge\u2019.) Does\tthis\tkind\tof\targument\tfor\trepresentative\tgovernment,\tand\tagainst\ttoo\tmuch accountability,\t presume\t that\t representatives\t are\t inherently\t wiser\t than,\t or\t in\t other ways\tsuperior\tto,\ttheir\tconstituents?\tNot\tnecessarily.\tIt\tcould\tsimply\tbe\tthat\tthey\tare given\t the\t time\t to\t think\t about\t the\t issues\t and\t process\t relevant\t information. Representative\t government\t could\t be\t justified\t simply\t by\t appeal\t to\t the\t division\t of labour.\t Many\t political\t issues\t are\t complicated\t and\t technical.\t Rather\t than\t have everybody\t devote\t scarce\t time\t to\t thinking\t about\t them,\t it\t makes\t sense\t to\t identify\t a few\thundred\tand\tpay\tthem\tto\tdo\tthe\tthinking,\tfull\ttime,\tfor\tus.\tTaken\ton\tits\town,\tof course,\tthis\targument\tsuggests\tthat\tit\twould\tbe\tall\tright\tfor\tour\tdecision-makers\tto be\t selected\t randomly.\t If\t the\t case\t for\t representative\t government\t were\t entirely\t that it\u2019s\t efficient\t to\t give\t some\t people\t the\t specific\t job\t of\t doing\t our\t political\t decision- making\tfor\tus,\tthen\ta\trandom\tcross-section\tof\tthe\telectorate\tcould\tbe\texpected\tto\tdo the\t job\t perfectly\t well.\t (Some\t have\t suggested\t that\t the\t British\t second\t legislative chamber,\tthe\tHouse\tof\tLords,\tbe\treplaced\tby\ta\tbody\tof\tthis\tkind.)\tIf\tyou\thave\tdoubts about\t that\t kind\t of\t selection\t procedure,\t that\u2019s\t probably\t because\t you\t do\t in\t fact believe\t that\t elected\t representatives\t are\t likely\t to\t be\t different\t from\t \u2013\t better\t at decision-making\tthan\t\u2013\tthe\taverage\tcitizen.","3\tEquality\t(of\topportunity)\tfor\tinfluence A\t po litical\t system\t is\t mo r e\t demo cr atic\t the\t mo r e\t its\t citizens\t have\t equal\t o ppo r tunity for\tpolitical\tinfluence.\tEquality\twill\treappear\tsoon,\tas\ta\tcore\tdemocratic\tvalue,\tbut we\t can\t begin\t to\t get\t a\t sense\t of\t its\t centrality\t by\t noting\t that\t the\t degree\t to\t which democracy\titself\tis\tachieved\tseems\tto\tdepend,\tin\tpart,\ton\tthe\textent\tto\twhich\tcitizens participate\tequally\tin\tthe\tmaking\tof\tpolitical\tdecisions.\tImagine\ttwo\tsocieties,\tboth with\tthe\tsame\tinstitutions\tof\trepresentative\tgovernment,\tthe\tsame\telectoral\tlaws,\tand each\t respecting\t the\t democratic\t idea\t of\t \u2018one\t person,\t one\t vote\u2019.\t In\t one\t of\t those societies\t all\t citizens\t have\t been\t educated\t to\t a\t level\t where\t they\t are\t able\t to\t read\t the newspapers,\tto\tunderstand\tand\tassess\tthe\targuments\tput\tto\tthem\tby\tthose\tcompeting for\tvotes,\tand\tto\tcontribute\tto\tpolitical\tdiscussion\tif\tthey\twant\tto.\tAll\talso\thave\tjobs that\t give\t them\t roughly\t equal\t amounts\t of\t money\t and\t leisure.\t In\t the\t other\t society, half\t the\t population\t has\t acquired\t the\t education\t they\t need\t to\t make\t and\t weigh\t up po litical\t ar g uments,\t but\t the\t o ther \t half\t is\t innumer ate\t and\t illiter ate.\t This\t divisio n\t is matched\t by\t jobs\t that\t yield\t very\t unequal\t amounts\t of\t money\t and\t leisure:\t half\t the population\t earns\t a\t comfortable\t living\t from\t jobs\t that\t yield\t ample\t time\t off\t for political\treflection,\twhile\tthe\tother\thalf\tworks\tall\thours\tjust\tto\tkeep\tthe\twolf\tfrom the\t door.\t Both\t countries\t hold\t general\t elections\t at\t the\t same\t time.\t Which\t result\t is more\tdemocratic? If\tsome\tare\tso\tpoor\tthat\tthey\tspend\tall\ttheir\ttime\tworrying\tabout\twhere\tthe\tnext meal\t is\t co ming \t fr o m,\t while\t o ther s\t ar e\t tr ained\t fr o m\t bir th\t to \t think\t abo ut\t and\t study political\tissues,\tand\tto\tdevelop\tthe\tskills\tneeded\tto\tpresent\ttheir\tviews\tin\ta\tcoherent and\tplausible\tmanner,\tthen\tthey\tare\thardly\table\tto\tact\tas\tequal\tcitizens\tin\tthe\tprocess of\t self-rule.\t The\t political\t decisions\t that\t are\t made\t will\t not\t reflect\t the\t views\t of\t the people\tas\ta\twhole\t\u2013\tthey\twill\treflect\tthe\tviews\tof\tthat\tsubset\tof\tthe\tpeople\twho\thave the\ttime\tand\tenergy\tand\tskill\tto\tdevote\tto\tthem.\tThose\tdecisions\tare\tless\tthan\tfully democratic. This\t is,\t of\t course,\t the\t beginning\t rather\t than\t the\t end\t of\t the\t story.\t Interesting detailed\tissues\tremain.\tWe\tknow,\tfor\texample,\tthat\tthere\tis\ta\tsignificant\tcorrelation between\tpeople\u2019s\tsocioeconomic\tposition\tand\tthe\tlikelihood\tof\ttheir\tvoting,\tand,\tin the\tUS,\tbetween\tthat\tposition\tand\ttheir\teven\tbeing\tregistered\tto\tvote.\tDoes\tthis\tshow that\t so cio economic\t inequality\t impacts\t on\t the\t extent\t to\t which\t people\t have\t equality of\topportunity\tto\tvote?\tNot\tnecessarily.\tIt\tshows\tthat\teconomic\tinequality\ttranslates into\tequality\tof\tpolitical\tinput,\tbut,\ttaking\tthe\t\u2018opportunity\u2019\tbit\tseriously,\twe\thave\tto admit\tthe\tpossibility\tthat\tsome\tof\tthose\twho\tchoose\tnot\tto\tvote\t(or\tto\tregister)\tare doing\tjust\tthat:\tchoosing.\tWhen\tassessing\tthe\tdemocraticness\tof\tpolitical\tdecision- making\talong\tthe\tequality\tdimension,\tis\tit\tequality\tof\tpolitical\tinput\tthat\twe\tshould be\tinterested\tin,\tor\tequality\tof\topportunity\tfor\tinput?\tAnd\thow\tcan\twe\ttell\twhen\ttwo people\thave\treally\thad\tthe\tsame\topportunity?","There\t is\t also\t a\t more\t general\t question\t about\t whether\t we\t should\t conceive democratic\t citizenship\t in\t egalitarian\t or\t sufficientarian\t terms.\t (If\t you\t don\u2019t\t know what\t this\t means,\t look\t at\t pp.\t 131\u20132.)\t Does\t it\t really\t matter\t whether\t citizens\t have equality,\t whether \t o f\t po litical\t input\t o r \t o f\t o ppo r tunity\t fo r \t such\t input?\t Or \t is\t the\t r eal point\t that\t all\t should\t reach\t some\t threshold\t level?\t Some\t theorists\t resist\t the suggestion\tthat\tequality\tunderstood\tin\ta\tstrict\tand\tdistributive\tsense\thas\timplications fo r \t the\t extent\t to \t which\t a\t po litical\t r eg ime,\t o r \t par ticular \t decisio n,\t can\t be\t said\t to \t be democratic.\tRather,\tfor\tthem,\twhat\tmatters\tis\tthat\tall\thave\twhatever\tthey\tneed\tto\tact properly\tas\tcitizens\t\u2013\tthe\trequisite\tfreedoms,\tthe\teducation\tto\tenable\tthem\tto\tassess options,\tand\tso\ton.\tAs\tlong\tas\tall\thave\tthat\tthreshold\tof\t\u2018citizenship-goods\u2019,\tthen\tthe society\t can\t be\t said\t to\t be\t fully\t democratic.\t Others\t disagree.\t Equality\t really\t does come\t into\t the\t story,\t because\t it\t really\t is\t important\t that\t citizens\t are\t able\t equally\t to take\t part\t in\t political\t decision-making.\t And\t political\t influence\t is\t to\t some\t extent\t a positional\tgood.\t(See\tpp.\t124\u20137.)\tHow\tinfluential\tmy\tviews\twill\tbe\tdepends\tnot\tjust on\tmy\tinput,\tbut\ton\tmy\tinput\trelative\tto\tthat\tof\tothers.\tIf\tone\tparty\thas\tvery\twealthy supporters\t who\t can\t fund\t big\t advertising\t campaigns,\t while\t another\t has\t to\t rely\t on donations\tfrom\tordinary\tcitizens,\tthen\tthe\tlatter\twill\tbe\tless\tinfluential\tthan\tit\twould be\t in\t a\t mo r e\t equal\t situatio n.\t Refo r ms\t aimed\t at\t limiting \t campaig n\t co ntr ibutio ns\t in the\t US\t should\t not\t be\t thought\t of\t as\t simply\t levelling\t down.\t Those\t with\t fewer political\t resources\t at\t their\t disposal\t are\t made\t better\t off\t \u2013\t the\t extent\t to\t which\t they can\t influence\t public\t debate\t is\t increased\t \u2013\t when\t others\t are\t deprived\t of\t the opportunity\tto\tdrown\tthem\tout.\t(Rawls\tthinks\tsomething\tlike\tthis.\tAlthough\the\tputs political\t rights\t like\t freedom\t of\t expression\t in\t his\t first\t principle\t of\t justice,\t which suggests\tthat\tthey\tcannot\tbe\ttraded\toff\tfor\tdistributive\tgoals,\the\talso\tinsists\tthat\tthe political\tliberties\tmust\tbe\tgiven\ttheir\t\u2018fair\tvalue\u2019,\tand\trecognizes\tthe\timpact\ton\tthat value\t o f\t the\t r eso ur ces\t that\t citizens\t can\t use\t to \t back\t them\t up.\t Rawls\t is\t in\t favo ur \t o f campaign\t finance\t reform,\t and,\t more\t generally,\t has\t grounds\t for\t restricting inequality\t where\t that\t undermines\t the\t fair\t value\t of\t people\u2019s\t political\t liberties.\t The US\t Supreme\t Court\t continues\t to\t hold\t that\t attempts\t to\t limit\t political\t contributions violate\tthe\tconstitutional\tright\tto\tfreedom\tof\texpression,\twhile\tUS\tpoliticians\tshow no\tinterest\tin\tlimiting\tinequality\ton\tdemocratic\tgrounds.)","4\tScope\tof\tauthority\tof\tdemocratic\twill However\t democratically\t we\t make\t our\t decisions\t \u2013\t whether\t directly\t or\t indirectly, whatever\t the\t accountability\t of\t our\t representatives,\t and\t however\t equally\t or unequally\t citizens\t are\t able\t to\t influence\t the\t decisions\t that\t are\t made\t \u2013\t there\t is\t an issue\t about\t which\t decisions\t should\t be\t made\t by\t democratic\t procedures.\t Judging what\t sho uld\t be\t the\t sco pe\t o f\t demo cr atic\t decisio n-making \t is\t a\t separ ate\t matter \t fr o m thinking\tabout\thow\tdecisions\twithin\tthat\tscope\tshould\tbe\tmade.\tOne\tcould\tbe\tkeen on\t thoroughly\t democratic\t procedures,\t but\t think\t that\t they\t should\t apply\t only\t to\t a narrow\t range\t of\t issues.\t Or\t one\t could\t believe\t that\t a\t very\t wide\t range\t of\t matters sho uld\t be\t decided\t by\t demo cr atic\t means,\t but\t insist\t that\t tho se\t means\t sho uld\t be\t less democratic\tthan\tothers\twould\tlike. The\t real\t issue\t here\t is\t the\t proper\t scope\t of\t politics.\t Which\t matters\t are\t \u2018public\u2019, where\t that\t means\t something\t like\t \u2018legitimately\t up\t for\t political\t decision\t and\t state action\u2019,\tand\twhich\t\u2018private\u2019,\ta\tmatter\tfor\tindividuals\tto\tdecide\tfor\tthemselves?\tThis, of\t cour se,\t is\t a\t hug e\t question.\t The\t point\t fo r \t no w\t is\t simply\t that\t the\t issue\t of\t which matters\tshould\tbe\tdecided\tdemocratically\ttypically\tarises\tonly\tafter\tone\thas\tdecided which\tshould\tbe\tdecided\tpolitically.\tSo\twe\tmight\twell\tthink\tthat\ta\tperson\u2019s\tsex\tlife is\t a\t matter \t fo r \t them\t alo ne.\t A\t po lity\t do es\t no t\t have\t a\t co llective\t sex\t life\t o f\t the\t kind that\t would\t make\t it\t appropriate\t to\t decide\t such\t matters\t politically.\t In\t that\t case,\t we would\t not\t want\t decisions\t about\t who\t went\t to\t bed\t with\t whom\t to\t be\t decided democratically.\tBut\tthat\twould\tbe\tbecause\twe\tdid\tnot\twant\tthat\tissue\ton\tthe\tpolitical agenda\t at\t all.\t It\t wouldn\u2019t\t be\t an\t argument\t against\t democracy\t in\t particular.\t And democracy\t might\t still\t be\t the\t best\t way\t of\t deciding\t those\t matters\t that\t are\t indeed public\tor\tpolitical\t\u2013\twhere\tcoordination\tis\trequired\tor\twhere\twe\tas\tcitizens\thave\ta legitimate\tinterest\tin\tregulating\tone\tanother \u2019s\tactions. Restrictions\ton\tthe\tscope\tof\tdemocratic\tdecision\tcan\tusefully\tbe\tdivided\tinto\ttwo kinds.\tSome\tare\tjustified\tby\tappeal\tto\tthe\tideal\tof\tdemocracy\titself.\tSuppose\tthat\tthe citizenry\t of\t a\t state\t collectively\t decided\t to\t deprive\t some\t subgroup\t of\t the\t right\t to vote,\t or\t the\t right\t to\t stand\t for\t office,\t or\t the\t right\t to\t freedom\t of\t expression.\t That decision\t would\t itself\t deny\t members\t of\t that\t group\t those\t things\t that\t constitute\t the ideal\t of\t democracy.\t Though\t the\t decision\t might\t be\t made\t democratically,\t it\t would nonetheless\t violate\t democratic\t principles.\t Allowing\t its\t members\t to\t vote,\t or\t stand for\toffice,\tor\tsay\twhat\tthey\tthink\tabout\tthe\tpowers\tthat\tbe,\tis\tpart\tof\twhat\tit\tmeans for\ta\tstate\tto\tbe\tdemocratic\tin\tthe\tfirst\tplace.\tTo\tdeny\tmembers\tthose\trights\twould, in\teffect,\tbe\tto\tdeny\tthem\tmembership\tof\ta\tdemocratic\tstate,\tand\ta\tstate\tthat\tdenied some\tof\tthose\tsubject\tto\tits\tlaws\tthe\tright\tto\tparticipate\tin\tmaking\tthose\tlaws\twould then\tcease\tto\tbe\ta\tdemocracy.\tMost\ttheorists\thold\tthat\tdemocratic\tauthority\tdoes\tnot extend\t to\t self-abolition\t \u2013\t so\t the\t people\t cannot\t legitimately\t decide,\t even\t by democratic\t means,\t to\t deprive\t themselves\t of\t those\t rights\t that\t are\t constitutive\t of","democracy\tin\tthe\tfirst\tplace. But\tnot\tall\trestrictions\ton\tthe\tscope\tof\tthe\tdemocratic\twill\tderive\tfrom\tthe\tideal of\tdemocracy\titself.\tI\tsuggested\tin\tPart\t1\tthat\tthere\tmight\tbe\tnothing\tundemocratic about\t a\t polity\u2019s\t deciding\t to\t deprive\t its\t members\t of\t freedom\t of\t sexuality\t (or\t of r elig io n).\t A\t demo cr atic\t decisio n\t to \t depr ive\t ho mo sexuals\t o f\t the\t r ig ht\t to \t campaig n politically\tfor\tchanges\tin\tthe\tlaw\twould\titself\tcontravene\tdemocratic\tprinciples.\tBut depriving\t them\t of\t the\t freedom\t to\t go\t to\t bed\t with\t their\t preferred\t partners,\t though perhaps\t unjust,\t does\t not\t obviously\t violate\t democratic\t values.\t It\u2019s\t not\t respect\t for demo cr acy\t that\t r equir es\t us\t to \t g r ant\t sexual\t fr eedo ms.\t Rather,\t this\t lo o ks\t like\t a\t case where\t we\t are,\t rightly,\t limiting\t the\t sway\t of\t democratic\t values\t \u2013\t preventing\t \u2018the people\u2019\tfrom\texercising\tpower\tin\ta\tcertain\tarea\tof\tlife\ton\tthe\tgrounds\tthat\tthat\tarea is,\tor\tshould\tbe,\t\u2018private\u2019. In\t an\t influential\t article\t called\t \u2018Taking\t Rights\t Seriously\u2019,\t the\t American philosopher\t Ronald\t Dworkin\t (1931\u20132013)\t argued\t that\t the\t rights\t that\t individuals ho ld\t ag ainst\t demo cr atic\t decisio n-making \t der ive\t fr o m\t the\t same\t value\t that\t justifies democracy\t itself.\t Political\t decisions\t should\t be\t made\t by\t majoritarian\t democracy because\t that\t is\t the\t pr o cedur e\t that\t tr eats\t peo ple\t as\t equals.\t Ever ybo dy\u2019s\t pr efer ences are\tregistered\tequally\tand\tthe\toutcome\tfavoured\tby\tmost\tpeople\twins.\t(Yes,\tthis\tis\ta gross\t simplification,\t but\t the\t basic\t thought\t holds\t across\t complications.)\t But,\t says Dworkin,\tthe\tvalue\tof\tthe\tstate\u2019s\ttreating\tcitizens\tequally\t\u2013\twith\twhat\the\tcalls\t\u2018equal concern\t and\t respect\u2019\t \u2013\t also\t justifies\t restrictions\t on\t the\t scope\t of\t majoritarian decision-making.\tIndividual\trights\tagainst\tthe\tdemocratic\twill\tshould\tbe\tthought\tof as\tguarantees\tthat\teach\tcitizen\twill\tbe\ttreated\tas\tan\tequal.\tIf,\tfor\texample,\tI\twere\tto vote\tto\tban\thomosexual\tacts,\tI\twould\tbe\ttrying\tto\timpose\ton\tothers\tmy\tview\tabout how\tpeople\tshould\tlive\ttheir\tsex\tlives.\tThat\twould\tbe\tto\tregister\twhat\tDworkin\tcalls an\t \u2018external\t preference\u2019,\t and\t if\t the\t decision\t did\t indeed\t reflect\t the\t preferences\t of people\t like\t me,\t then\t it\t would\t involve\t a\t kind\t of\t \u2018double\t counting\u2019.\t Since\t \u2018double counting\u2019\t itself\t violates\t the\t principle\t of\t equality,\t the\t very\t reasons\t we\t have\t to\t be majoritarian\t democrats\t in\t the\t first\t place,\t reasons\t of\t equality,\t are\t also\t reasons\t to grant\t individuals\t rights\t against\t certain\t decisions\t that\t a\t majoritarian\t democracy might\totherwise\tmake. Most\tphilosophers\tthink\tthat\tthis\tparticular\targument\tdoesn\u2019t\tquite\twork.\tIt\u2019s\tnot clear\tthat\twe\tcan\tcoherently\tdistinguish\tpreferences\tabout\thow\tone\tlives\tone\u2019s\town life\t from\t \u2018external\u2019\t preferences,\t nor\t that\t including\t the\t latter\t is\t really\t \u2018double counting\u2019.\t Still,\t the\t general\t idea\t \u2013\t that\t restrictions\t on\t the\t scope\t of\t democratic authority\tmight\tbe\tderived\tfrom\tthe\tsame\tvalue\tthat\tmakes\tus\tdemocrats\tin\tthe\tfirst place\t\u2013\thas\ta\tlot\tgoing\tfor\tit.\tEven\tif\twe\taccept\tan\targument\tof\tthat\tkind,\thowever, it\u2019s\t not\t clear\t that\t it\t would\t be\t helpful\t to\t call\t those\t restrictions\t \u2018democratic\u2019.\t We could\t justify\t individual\t rights\t against\t democratic\t decisions\t by\t appeal\t to\t equality, and\t regard\t equality\t as\t the\t main\t reason\t why\t democratic\t procedures\t are\t legitimate","(where\t they\t are\t so),\t without\t abandoning\t the\t thought\t that\t those\t restrictions\t are indeed\trestrictions\ton\tdemocracy.","Procedures\tand\toutcomes I\thope\tthat\tconsidering\tthese\tfour\tdimensions\talong\twhich\ta\tpolitical\tsystem\tmight be\t less\t o r \t mo r e\t demo cr atic\t has\t tr ig g er ed\t the\t tho ug ht\t that,\t tho ug h\t demo cr acy\t may be\t a\t g o o d\t thing ,\t o ne\t can\t have\t to o \t much\t o f\t it.\t (The\t same,\t after \t all,\t is\t tr ue\t o f\t bo th mo ther ho o d\t and\t apple\t pie.)\t An\t entir ely\t demo cr atic\t po litical\t system\t wo uld\t invo lve all\tcitizens\tdirectly\tdeciding\teverything,\tand\tdoing\tso\ton\ta\tthoroughly\tequal\tbasis. Surely\t some\t matters\t should\t not\t be\t on\t the\t political\t agenda\t at\t all.\t And,\t for\t matters properly\tsubject\tto\tpolitical\tdecision,\tsurely\tit\tmatters\twhat\tgets\tdecided\tand\thow\tit gets\t decided,\t not\t just\t who\t does\t the\t deciding.\t This\t is\t shown\t by\t our\t aversion\t to teledemocracy,\t which\t misses\t out\t on\t some\t important\t parts\t of\t a\t good\t decision- making\t procedure,\t such\t as\t debate\t and\t deliberation.\t It\u2019s\t indicated\t also\t by\t our worries\tabout\tthe\tdirect\trecall\tor\tmandating\tof\trepresentatives\t(or\tdelegates),\twhich would\t give\t them\t little\t possibility\t of\t independent\t reflection.\t Many\t of\t us\t would probably\tbe\twilling\tto\ttrade\toff\tsome\tdemocraticness\tof\tdecision-making\tin\treturn for\tbetter\tdecision-making. It\t seems\t that\t mo st\t o f\t us\t car e\t abo ut\t the\t co ntent\t o f\t what\t g ets\t decided\t \u2013\t at\t least\t to some\t extent.\t That\t may\t seem\t obvious,\t but\t it\t is\t in\t fact\t perfectly\t possible\t to\t value procedures\t \u2013\t and\t to\t regard\t them\t as\t producing\t legitimate\t decisions\t \u2013\t on\t grounds that\t have\t nothing\t to\t do\t with\t the\t quality\t of\t the\t decisions\t they\t produce.\t To\t judge democratic\t procedures\t by\t reference\t to\t their\t output\t is\t to\t see\t those\t procedures\t as means\t rather\t than\t ends.\t But\t it\t does\t seem\t that\t part\t of\t the\t case\t for\t democracy\t \u2013\t as better\t than,\t say,\t rule\t by\t a\t wise\t elite\t \u2013\t rests\t on\t values\t that\t are\t embodied\t in democratic\t procedures\t themselves.\t Let\u2019s\t explore\t this\t distinction\t between instrumental\tand\tintrinsic\tjustifications\tof\tdemocracy. It\u2019s\thelpful\tto\tthink\tof\tdemocracy\tas\tessentially\ta\tprocedure\tfor\tmaking\tpolitical decisions.\tThe\tquestion\tis\twhether\tdemocracy\tis\ta\tgood\tway\tof\tmaking\tdecisions\t\u2013 or\t at\t least\t the\t best\t we\u2019ve\t got.\t (Winston\t Churchill\t (1874\u20131965),\t British\t Prime Minister \t dur ing \t the\t Seco nd\t Wo r ld\t War,\t famo usly\t said\t that\t demo cr acy\t is\t the\t wo r st form\t of\t government\t except\t for\t all\t the\t others\t that\t have\t been\t tried.)\t What\t criteria should\twe\tuse\tto\tassess\tdecision-making\tprocedures?\tWe\tknow\tthat\twe\twant\tthe\tbest way\tof\tmaking\tdecisions.\tBut\tdoes\tthis\tmean\twe\twant\tthe\tway\tthat\twill\tmake\tthe\tbest decisions? For\t some,\t the\t answer\t is\t a\t straightforward\t \u2018yes\u2019.\t On\t their\t view,\t what\t makes\t a decision-making\tprocedure\tgood\tor\tbad\tis\tprecisely\tthe\tquality\tof\tthe\tdecisions\tthat it\t tends\t to\t produce.\t If\t it\t produces\t good\t decisions,\t then\t it\t is\t a\t good\t procedure\t for making\t decisions.\t If\t not,\t not.\t This\t makes\t a\t lot\t of\t sense.\t After\t all,\t we\t are\t talking about\tprocedures\tfor\tmaking\tdecisions.\tHow\telse\tare\twe\tgoing\tto\tjudge\tthem,\tif\tnot by\t considering\t how\t likely\t they\t are\t to\t get\t those\t decisions\t right?\t As\t the\t American philosopher\tRichard\tArneson\t(b.\t1945)\thas\tput\tit:\t\u2018Democracy,\twhen\tit\tis\tjust,\tis\tso","entirely\tin\tvirtue\tof\tthe\ttendency\tof\tdemocratic\tinstitutions\tand\tpractices\tto\tproduce outcomes\t that\t are\t just\t according\t to\t standards\t that\t are\t conceptually\t independent\t of the\t standards\t that\t define\t the\t democratic\t ideal.\u2019\t What\u2019s\t wrong\t with\t teledemocracy, on\tthis\tkind\tof\tview,\tis\tthe\tfact\tthat\tmaking\tlaws\tby\tgetting\tmillions\tof\tuninformed people\tto\tclick\ton\ta\tcomputer\tscreen\tor\tvia\ttheir\tinteractive\tTV\tis\tlikely\tto\tresult\tin some\t dreadful\t laws.\t A\t procedure\t that\t involves\t careful\t weighing\t of\t the\t evidence, judicio us\t deliber atio n\t amo ng \t info r med\t and\t eng ag ed\t po liticians,\t is,\t o n\t this\t view,\t a better\tprocedure\tprecisely\tbecause\tit\tis\tmore\tlikely\tto\tresult\tin\tgood\tdecisions. But\t others\t think\t that\t we\t should\t evaluate\t procedures\t in\t a\t rather\t different\t way. Rather\tthan\tseeing\tthem\tin\tinstrumental\tterms,\tas\tmeans\tto\tends,\tor\tin\tterms\tof\ttheir likely\t output\t or\t consequences,\t we\t should\t evaluate\t them\t in\t terms\t of\t their\t intrinsic value\t\u2013\tin\tterms\tof\tthe\tvalues\tembodied\tin\tthe\tprocedures\tthemselves.\tIf\tdemocracy is\t good,\t from\t this\t perspective,\t that\u2019s\t not\t because\t democracies\t tend\t to\t make\t good laws\tbut\tbecause\tthe\tdemocratic\tway\tof\tmaking\tlaws\titself\trealizes\tcertain\tvalues\t\u2013 such\tas\tfairness,\tequality\tor\tautonomy. This\t distinction\t between\t intrinsic\t and\t instrumental\t value\t can\t be\t confusing.\t To clarify\t what\u2019s\t going\t on\t here,\t let\u2019s\t suppose\t equality\t to\t be\t a\t value\t intrinsic\t to democratic\t procedures.\t This\t means\t that\t democratic\t procedures\t are\t intrinsically valuable\t insofar\t as\t they\t treat\t people\t as\t equals,\t their\t views\t as\t equally\t worthy\t of respect,\tor\tsomething\talong\tthose\tlines.\tIt\u2019s\tcrucial\tto\tsee\tthat\twe\tare\tstill\tgiving\ta reason\twhy\tdemocracy\tis\tintrinsically\tvaluable\t\u2013\tin\tthis\tcase\tit\u2019s\tbecause\tthat\tis\tthe procedure\t that\t respects\t people\u2019s\t equality\t as\t citizens.\t The\t fact\t that\t democracy\t is valuable\t because\t it\t realizes\t or\t embodies\t the\t value\t of\t equality\t does\t not\t mean\t that demo cr acy\t is\t valuable\t o nly\t instr umentally,\t o nly\t as\t a\t means\t to \t the\t end\t o f\t equality. For\tdemocracy\tto\tbe\tinstrumentally\tvaluable,\tit\twould\thave\tto\tbe\tvalued\tin\tterms\tof its\t consequences.\t But\t the\t equality\t we\t have\t in\t mind\t here\t is\t not\t a\t consequence\t of demo cr acy.\t It\t is\t no t\t so mething \t that\t demo cr acy\t tends\t to \t pr o duce.\t We\t do n\u2019t\t have\t to wait\tto\tsee\twhat\tresults\tfrom\tdemocracy\tin\torder\tto\tjudge\tthat\tit\trealizes\tthe\tvalue of\t equality.\t Democratic\t procedures\t embody\t or\t realize\t that\t value\t in\t themselves, intr insically.\t The\t same\t g o es\t fo r \t the\t value\t o f\t auto no my\t o r \t self-r ule.\t We\t can\t judg e that\tdemocratic\tdecision-making\tembodies\tthe\tvalue\tof\tself-rule,\tin\ta\tway\tthat\tbeing ruled\tby\ta\tdictator\twould\tnot,\twithout\tknowing\tanything\tabout\tthe\tlikely\toutcomes of\tdemocracy\tin\taction. Although\t it\u2019s\t important\t to\t keep\t the\t two\t kinds\t of\t argument\t distinct,\t the\t case\t for democracy\t need\t not\t be\t based\t exclusively\t on\t either\t intrinsic\t or\t instrumental justifications.\tThe\tsame\tgoes\tfor\tparticular\tspecifications\tof\tthe\tidea\tthat\tthe\tpeople should\t rule\t themselves.\t There\u2019s\t no\t incoherence\t in\t evaluating\t procedures\t for making\t decisions\t in\t terms\t of\t both\t kinds\t of\t value,\t favouring\t that\t which\t seems\t to give\tthe\tbest\toverall\tbalance.\tThus,\tfor\texample,\twe\tmay\tthink\tthat\tsome\tdegree\tof equality\t o f\t o ppo r tunity\t fo r \t po litical\t input\t is\t essential\t to \t a\t law-making \t pr o cedur e\u2019s","being\tjustified,\tand\tfavour\tdemocracy\tover\trule\tby\ta\twise\telite\tfor\tthat\treason.\tBut we\tmay\talso\tthink\tit\tworth\tsacrificing\tsome\tamount\tof\tequality\tif\tdoing\tso\tis\tlikely to\tproduce\tbetter\tdecisions.\tSomething\tlike\tthat\tmay\tbe\tthe\ttrade-off\tmade\tby\tthose who\tprefer\tparliamentary\tdemocracy\tto\tteledemocracy. Notice\t that\t democratic\t decision-making\t has\t consequences\t other\t than\t the decisions\t that\t get\t made.\t It\t may\t be\t a\t bit\t misleading\t to\t think\t of\t these\t other consequences\t as\t \u2018outputs\u2019,\t but\t they\t may\t well\t be\t relevant\t to\t the\t evaluation\t of\t the pr o cedur e\t that\t pr o duces\t them.\t So me,\t fo r \t example,\t have\t ar g ued\t fo r \t demo cr acy\t o n the\tgrounds\tthat\tbeing\tinvolved\tin\tthe\tmaking\tof\tpolitical\tdecisions\ttends\tto\tdevelop citizens\u2019\t intellectual\t and\t moral\t capacities.\t (John\t Stuart\t Mill\t famously\t claimed something\talong\tthese\tlines.)\tOr\tperhaps\tit\tis\tmore\timportant\tthat\tthe\tlaws\tthat\tget made\t are\t respected\t and\t complied\t with\t than\t that\t they\t are\t good\t in\t terms\t of\t their content.\t A\t not-so-great\t law\t that\t everybody\t is\t willing\t to\t obey\t might\t be\t better,\t all things\t considered,\t than\t an\t otherwise\t great\t law\t that\t fails\t to\t command\t widespread support.\t (Tocqueville\t runs\t this\t argument\t in\t his\t analysis\t in\t Democracy\t in\t America (1835).)\tThis\tis\tcertainly\tan\timportant\tconsideration,\tbut\tbear\tin\tmind\tthat\tthe\tsame thing\t could\t be\t said\t for\t absolute\t monarchy,\t where\t the\t people\t as\t a\t whole\t regarded that\tas\tthe\tproper\tway\tto\tmake\tdecisions\tand\tcouldn\u2019t\tbe\tdoing\twith\tthis\tdangerous and\t new-fang led\t idea\t o f\t demo cr acy.\t Stability\t and\t co mpliance\t may\t be\t g o o d\t thing s, other\tthings\tequal,\tbut\tother\tthings\taren\u2019t\talways\tequal.\tSometimes\tinsurrection\tor revolution\tare\tprecisely\twhat\tis\trequired.","Is\tdemocracy\tparadoxical? According\t to\t a\t well-known\t article\t by\t the\t British\t philosopher\t Richard\t Wollheim (1923\u20132003),\t there\t is\t a\t paradox\t at\t the\t core\t of\t democracy.\t It\t is,\t I\t think,\t easily resolved\t\u2013\tperhaps\tit\u2019s\tnot\teven\ta\tparadox\tat\tall\t\u2013\tbut\toutlining\tand\tresolving\tit\tis\ta useful\t way\t of\t explaining\t the\t difference\t between\t a\t decision\u2019s\t being\t correct\t and\t its being\tlegitimate. Suppose\t I\t am\t a\t democrat.\t There\t is\t a\t vote\t on\t some\t matter\t \u2013\t let\u2019s\t say\t it\u2019s\t the question\tof\twho\tshould\tbe\tthe\tMember\tof\tParliament\tfor\tmy\tconstituency.\tI\tvote\tfor Ms\tWise.\tI\tdo\tso\tbecause\tI\tthink\tshe\tis\tthe\tright\tperson\t(at\tleast\tof\tthose\tstanding)\tto be\tour\tMP.\tI\tlose\tthe\tvote,\tand\tMr\tFoolish\tis\telected.\tSince\tI\tam\ta\tdemocrat,\tI\tnow think\tthat\tMr\tFoolish\tis\tthe\tright\tperson\tto\trepresent\tmy\tconstituency\tin\tthe\tHouse of\t Commons.\t Have\t I\t changed\t my\t mind?\t Or\t do\t I\t somehow\t \u2013\t and\t apparently incoherently\t\u2013\tthink\tboth\tthat\tMs\t Wise\t is\t the\t right\t person\t for\t the\t job\t and\t that\t Mr Foolish\t is?\t This\t teaser\t \u2013\t sometimes\t called\t the\t puzzle\t of\t the\t minority\t democrat\t \u2013 shouldn\u2019t\t be\t too\t puzzling.\t There\t is\t no\t deep\t paradox,\t since\t the\t two\t candidates\t are \u2018right\u2019\tin\tdifferent\tsenses. Before\tgetting\tclear\ton\twhat\tthey\tare,\tlet\u2019s\tdispose\tof\tthe\tidea\tthat\twhat\thappens is\tthat\tI\tchange\tmy\tmind\tabout\twhich\tof\tthe\ttwo\twould\tbe\tbetter\tat\tthe\tjob.\tSure,\tthe fact\t that\t I\t lost\t the\t vote\t might\t lead\t me\t to\t change\t my\t mind.\t I\t might\t not\t have\t much confidence\tin\tmy\town\tjudgement,\tand\tmight\tregard\tthe\tfact\tthat\tmany\tother\tpeople had\ta\tdifferent\topinion\tfrom\tme\tas\tevidence\tthat\tmy\town\tinitial\tview\twas\tmistaken. Certainly\tI\u2019ve\ttaken\tpart\tin\tvotes\twhere\tthat\u2019s\thappened\t\u2013\twhere\tI\u2019ve\tbeen\tunsure\tas to \t which\t way\t to \t vo te,\t and\t seen\t my\t being \t o utvo ted\t as\t a\t sig n\t that\t I\t made\t the\t wr o ng call.\t But\t those\t have\t been\t rather\t special\t cases.\t They\u2019ve\t been\t cases\t where\t I\t had reason\tto\tthink\tthat\tmy\tfellow\tvoters\twere\tat\tleast\tas\tlikely\tas\tI\twas\tto\tmake\ta\tgood judgement\t about\t the\t matter\t being\t voted\t on\t (e.g.,\t on\t decisions\t about\t whom\t to appoint\t to\t jobs\t at\t my\t university).\t Where\t that\u2019s\t the\t case,\t the\t fact\t that\t one\t is\t in\t the minority\tdoes\tindeed\tgive\tone\tgrounds\tfor\tthinking\tone\tmade\ta\tmistake.\t(More\ton this\t later,\t when\t I\t explain\t Co ndo r cet\u2019s\t Jur y\t T heo r em\t \u2013\t which\t sho ws\t that\t as\t lo ng \t as the\taverage\tperson\tis\tmore\tlikely\tto\tbe\tright\tthan\twrong,\tthe\tmajority\tis\teven\tmore likely\t to \t be\t r ig ht.)\t But\t I\u2019ve\t never \t chang ed\t my\t mind\t in\t an\t electio n\t fo r \t my\t Member of\tParliament.\tI\thaven\u2019t\tregarded\tmy\tlosing\tthe\tvote\tas\ta\tsign\tthat\tI\tmade\tthe\twrong call\t in\t those\t elections.\t Rather,\t I\t continued\t to\t argue\t for\t my\t preferred\t candidate, explaining\tto\tanybody\twho\twould\tlisten\tthat\twe\t(i.e.,\tthey)\thad\tmade\ta\tbig\tmistake. No ,\t the\t element\t o f\t par ado x\t ar ises\t pr ecisely\t wher e\t the\t mino r ity\t demo cr at\t do es\t no t change\t her\t mind.\t Only\t then\t do\t we\t get\t the\t apparent\t conflict\t between\t two incompatible\tjudgements. Apparent,\t but\t not\t real.\t There\t are\t two\t distinct\t judgements\t involved\t here, judgements\t on\t two\t different\t issues:\t correctness\t and\t legitimacy.\t Ms\t Wise\t remains","the\tright\tperson\tto\tbe\tour\trepresentative\tin\tthe\tsense\tof\tbeing\tthe\tperson\twho\twould do\tthat\tjob\tbest.\tThat\tis\tthe\tissue\twe\tare\tvoting\ton,\tand\tmy\tvote\tregisters\tmy\tbelief that\tshe\tis\tthat\tperson.\tWhen\tI\tendorse\tthe\tdemocratic\tdecision,\tmy\tclaim\tis\tnot\tthat Mr\t Foolish\t was\t a\t good\t choice.\t It\t is\t that\t he\t is\t our\t legitimate\t representative.\t I\t am accepting\tthat\tthe\tproper\tprocedure\tfor\tdeciding\twho\trepresents\tus\tis\ta\tdemocratic vote.\tThe\tfact\tthat\tthe\tprocedure\tselected\thim\tmeans\tthat\the\tis\tthe\tright\tperson\tto\tbe our\tMP\t\u2013\teven\tthough\t(I\tcontinue\tto\tthink)\the\twill\tbe\tterrible\tat\tthe\tjob.\tAn\toutcome of\ta\tprocedure\tcan\tbe\tlegitimate\t\u2013\tone\tcan\thave\tmoral\treason\tto\tendorse\tand\tabide by\t that\t outcome\t \u2013\t simply\t in\t virtue\t of\t its\t having\t been\t the\t outcome\t of\t a\t legitimate (or,\t we\t might\t say,\t legitimizing)\t procedure.\t And\t it\t can\t be\t legitimate\t in\t that\t sense without\tbeing\tcorrect\tby\tany\tprocedure-independent\tstandards\tof\tcorrectness. T he\t idea\t that\t a\t decisio n\t mig ht\t g et\t its\t leg itimacy\t fr o m\t the\t pr o cedur e\t by\t which\t it was\t made,\t even\t if\t it\t is,\t in\t fact,\t a\t bad\t decision,\t is\t familiar\t from\t sport.\t We\t know perfectly\t well\t that\t referees\t and\t umpires\t make\t mistakes,\t sometimes\t glaring\t ones; but\t we\t also\t understand\t that\t there\t is\t good\t reason\t to\t have\t decisions\t made\t that\t way (rather\t than,\t say,\t by\t a\t vote\t amongst\t the\t players),\t and\t regard\t those\t decisions\t as legitimate\tfor\tthat\treason.\tThe\tsame\tgoes\tfor\tthe\tdecisions\tmade\tby\tjuries\tin\tcourt. Juries\tget\tthings\twrong.\tInnocent\tdefendants\tare\tvictims\tof\tmiscarriages\tof\tjustice. But\tas\tlong\tas\tthe\tproper\tprocedure\twas\tfollowed\t(no\twitnesses\twere\tnobbled,\tthe jury\twasn\u2019t\trigged,\tthe\tprosecution\tdidn\u2019t\tconceal\tcrucial\tevidence),\tthose\tdecisions remain\tlegitimate. There\u2019s\tnothing\tparticularly\ttroubling,\tthen,\tabout\tthe\tidea\tthat\tdecisions\tthat\tare wr o ng \t in\t o ne\t sense\t can\t be\t r ig ht\t in\t ano ther.\t It\t can\t be\t r ig ht\t to \t co nvict\t so meo ne\t just because\ta\tjury\tjudged\tthem\tguilty,\teven\tif\tthe\tjury\tgot\tthat\tdecision\twrong.\tBut\twhat is\tit\tthat\tmakes\ta\tprocedure\tthe\tright\tkind\tto\tlegitimize\ta\tdecision?\tIn\tthe\tsports\tand courtroom\tcase,\tit\tlooks\tas\tif\twe\tchoose\tour\tprocedures\twith\tat\tleast\tone\teye\ton\tthe likelihood\tof\ttheir\tgetting\tthem\tright.\tWe\tdo\tin\tfact\tchange\tour\tdecision\tprocedures from\t time\t to\t time,\t when\t we\t judge\t that\t other\t procedures\t would\t be\t more\t likely\t to issue\tin\tthe\tright\tdecision.\tCricket\thas\tintroduced\ta\tthird\tumpire,\tto\tadjudicate\trun- outs\t and\t stumpings\t via\t a\t television\t monitor.\t Juries\t in\t the\t UK\t will\t no\t longer adjudicate\t on\t some\t complex\t fraud\t cases,\t where\t they\t are\t deemed\t unlikely\t to\t have the\t expertise\t needed\t to\t understand\t the\t issues\t at\t stake.\t It\u2019s\t true\t that\t considerations other\t than\t \u2018tendency\t to\t produce\t the\t right\t answer \u2019\t play\t into\t our\t assessment\t of decision-making\tprocedures.\t(In\tthe\tsporting\tcase,\twe\tdon\u2019t\twant\tto\tslow\tthe\tgame down\ttoo\tmuch.)\tStill,\ttheir\ttendency\tto\tproduce\tbetter\trather\tthan\tworse\tdecisions is\t an\t important\t part\t of\t the\t way\t we\t judge\t the\t legitimacy\t of\t decision-making procedures\tin\tthese\tareas. Does\t the\t same\t apply\t to\t democracy?\t When\t I\t endorse\t Mr\t Foolish\t as\t my representative,\tis\tthat\tbecause\tI\tthink\tthat,\ton\tthe\twhole,\tdemocracy\tis\ta\tgood\tway\tof making\t good\t choices?\t \u2018OK,\u2019\t I\t might\t think,\t \u2018they\u2019ve\t messed\t up\t big\t time\t on\t this","occasion.\t Still,\t generally\t speaking,\t democratic\t procedures\t tend\t to\t result\t in\t good decisions.\t That\u2019s\t why\t I\t should\t regard\t this\t idiot\t as\t my\t legitimate\t political representative.\u2019\t If\t I\t do\t think\t like\t this,\t then\t I\t am\t invoking\t an\t instrumental justification\tof\tdemocracy.\tI\tam\tmaking\tits\tlegitimizing\trole\thang\ton\ta\tbelief\tabout its\t(likely)\tconsequences.\tOr\tis\tmy\treason\tfor\tregarding\thim\tas\tlegitimate\tintrinsic to\tthe\tdemocratic\tprocedure\tby\twhich\the\twas\telected?\tPerhaps\tthe\tmajority\tview\tis legitimate\tsimply\tbecause\tall\tmy\tfellow\tconstituents\tare\tequally\tentitled\tto\ta\tsay\tin who\t their\t representative\t is,\t and\t going\t with\t the\t majority\t is\t the\t best\t way\t to\t reflect their\tequality\tof\tstanding\tin\trelation\tto\tthat\tdecision.\tThat\twould\thave\tnothing\tto\tdo with\tany\ttendency\tof\tdemocracy\tto\tproduce\tgood\tdecisions.\tAgain,\twe\tare\tback\tto the\tdistinction\tbetween\tintrinsic\tand\tinstrumental\tjustifications\tof\tdemocracy.","Subjectivism,\tdemocracy\tand\tdisagreement All\t this\t talk\t about\t \u2018right\t answers\u2019\t and\t \u2018mistakes\u2019\t may\t be\t troubling\t some\t readers. \u2018Yes,\u2019\t you\t might\t be\t thinking,\t \u2018I\t can\t see\t that\t there\t may\t be\t right\t answers\t to\t the questions\t decided\t by\t umpires\t or\t juries.\t I\t can\t see\t also\t that\t there\t might\t be\t right answers\t to\t technical\t political\t questions\t \u2013\t about\t what\t policies\t will\t best\t achieve particular\t aims\t (low\t inflation,\t efficient\t social\t services\t or\t whatever).\t But,\t as\t you told\tus\tin\tyour\tintroduction,\tpolitical\tdecisions\taren\u2019t\tjust\ttechnical.\tThey\tare\talso, at\t least\t implicitly,\t decisions\t about\t what\t aims\t we\t should\t be\t pursuing\t in\t the\t first place.\t That\t makes\t them,\t ultimately,\t moral\t questions.\t Are\t there\t really\t \u201cright\u201d answers\t to\t those?\t If\t not,\t how\t can\t it\t make\t sense\t to\t talk\t about\t a\t political\t decision being\tright\tor\twrong?\u2019 One\t aim\t of\t this\t book\t has\t been\t to\t highlight\t and\t challenge\t the\t prevalence\t of subjectivism\tor\tscepticism\tin\tmuch\tcontemporary\tthinking\tabout\tmoral\t(and\thence political)\tissues.\tMany\tof\tmy\tstudents\tendorse\t(or\tthink\tthey\tendorse)\tsome\tvariant o f\t this\t po sitio n,\t ho lding \t that\t o pinio ns\t o n\t mo r al\t o r \t po litical\t matter s\t ar e\t essentially matters\tof\topinion\tor\tpreference\tonly.\tMany,\tit\tseems,\tbelieve\tthat\tthe\tmain\treason why\twe\tshould\thave\tdemocracy\tis\tprecisely\tthat\tthere\tare\tno\tright\tanswers\tto\tmany political\tquestions.\tAll\tviews\tabout\twhat\tthe\tlaw\tshould\tbe\tare\tequally\tvalid,\tso\tthe proper\t thing\t to\t do\t is\t simply\t to\t add\t up\t what\t people\t think.\t Indeed,\t so\t the\t thought sometimes\t goes,\t if\t there\t were\t moral\t knowledge\t about\t political\t matters,\t then demo cr acy\t wo uld\t be\t a\t ver y\t str ang e\t way\t o f\t r eaching \t it.\t Endo r sing \t demo cr acy\t as\t a means\t of\t making\t laws\t means\t treating\t each\t person\u2019s\t view\t \u2013\t educated\t and uneducated,\t wise\t and\t thoughtless\t \u2013\t as\t equally\t good.\t And\t that\t only\t makes\t sense\t if there\u2019s\tnothing\tfor\tthem\tto\tbe\tright\tor\twrong\tabout. This\t is\t a\t bit\t like\t the\t thought\t allegedly\t connecting\t liberalism\t and\t moral subjectivism,\twhich\tI\tunmasked\tin\tPart\t4:\tthe\tidea\tthat\tit\tonly\tmakes\tsense\tto\tallow people\tto\tchoose\ttheir\tconception\tof\tthe\tgood\tif\tno\tconceptions\tare\tbetter\tthan\tany others.\t As\t in\t that\t case,\t one\t can\u2019t\t be\t a\t subjectivist\t about\t all\t values\t and simultaneously\t believe\t that\t democracy\t is\t the\t legitimate\t way\t to\t make\t political decisions.\t If\t no\t moral\t judgements\t are\t true\t or\t false,\t what\t makes\t democracy\t more legitimate\t than\t dictatorship?\t That\t view\t must\t invoke\t some\t moral\t claims:\t perhaps that\tthere\u2019s\tsome\tvalue\tto\tthe\tpeople\truling\tthemselves.\tThis\tis\ta\tcollective\tvariant of\tthe\tliberal\tview\tthat\twhat\tmatters\tis\tnot\tso\tmuch\tthat\tpeople\tchoose\trightly\tas\tthat they\tchoose\tautonomously.\tAnd,\tlike\tthat\tview,\tit\tis\tquite\tconsistent\twith\tthe\tidea\tthat some\tchoices\tare\tbetter\tthan\tothers.\tWe\tcan\tperfectly\twell\tbe\tdemocrats\teven\tif\twe do\tthink\tthat\tthere\tare\tbetter\tor\tworse\tanswers\tto\tpolitical\tquestions,\tand\teven\tif\twe don\u2019t\tthink\tthat\tdemocracy\tis\tparticularly\twell\tsuited\tto\treaching\tthem. Demo cr ats\t need\t no t,\t then,\t believe\t that\t all\t o pinio ns\t as\t to \t what\t the\t law\t sho uld\t be are\tequally\tgood\tanswers\tto\tthat\tquestion.\tThey\tmight\tbelieve\tsomething\tsimilar\tbut","crucially\tdifferent,\tsuch\tas\tthat\teverybody\u2019s\topinion\tabout\tthe\tanswer\tshould\tbe\tfed into\t the\t legislative\t procedure\t on\t equal\t terms.\t Opinions\t could\t be\t equally\t valid\t as inputs\tto\tthe\tlegislative\tdecision\twithout\tbeing\tequally\tgood\tanswers\tto\tthe\tquestion of\t what\t law\t would\t be\t best.\t This\t might\t be\t because\t all\t citizens\t have\t a\t right\t to\t take part\tin\tthe\tlaw-making\tprocess\ton\tequal\tterms.\tIt\tmight\tbe\tbecause\tthere\tis\tno\tother appropriately\tpublic\tor\tlegitimate\tbasis\tfor\tdeciding\twhich\tanswers\tare\tbetter\tthan others.\t Whatever\t the\t specifics,\t the\t basic\t point\t is\t that\t there\t are\t more\t goods\t than epistemic\t goods.\t So\t even\t if\t we\t believed\t that\t there\t was\t a\t right\t answer\t in\t any particular\t case,\t and\t even\t if\t we\t believed\t that\t it\t could\t be\t identified,\t we\t might\t still prefer\t a\t decision-making\t procedure\t that\t we\t thought\t less\t likely\t (than,\t say,\t the decision\tof\tmoral\texperts)\tto\tproduce\tit. The\t fact\t that\t people\t usually\t disagree\t about\t which\t laws\t should\t be\t made\t is certainly\t of\t huge\t significance\t for\t the\t issue\t of\t which\t decision-making\t procedures are\t legitimate.\t But\t that\t significance\t is\t often\t misunderstood.\t It\t is\t not,\t as\t many believe,\tthat\tdisagreement \u2013\t even\t deep\t and\t apparently\t interminable\t disagreement\t \u2013\t proves\t that\t there\t is nothing\t to\t be\t right\t or\t wrong\t about.\t That\t is\t a\t non\t sequitur.\t The\t fact\t that\t people disagree\tabout\tsomething\tdoes\tnot\tnecessarily\tmean\tthat\tthere\u2019s\tno\tright\tanswer\tto the\t question\t of\t which\t of\t them\t (if\t any)\t is\t right.\t Disagreement\t is\t significant\t not because\t it\t implies\t that\t any\t decision\t would\t be\t as\t good\t as\t any\t other,\t but\t because there\u2019s\ta\tmoral\tproblem\t\u2013\ta\tproblem\tof\tlegitimacy\t\u2013\tin\tmaking\tpeople\tcomply\twith policies\t they\t disagree\t with.\t The\t state\t is\t a\t coercive\t agent.\t It\t uses\t its\t coercive apparatus\tto\tforce\tcitizens\tto\tgo\talong\twith\tits\tdecisions.\tWhat\thappens,\tin\teffect,\tis that\t one\t subset\t of\t the\t population\t imposes\t on\t everybody\t else\t its\t view\t about\t how things\tshould\tbe.\tThe\tclaim\tthat\tthe\tview\tin\tquestion\tis\tthe\tright\tone\tdoes\tnot\tjustify that\timposition. Why\t not?\t The\t answer\t has\t something\t to\t do\t with\t people\u2019s\t equal\t standing\t as citizens,\tas\tmembers\tof\tthe\tpolity.\tPerhaps\tthe\tidea\tof\trespect\tfor\tmy\tfellow\tcitizens is\t part\t of\t the\t story.\t But\t if\t we\t think\t about\t it\t that\t way,\t we\t need\t to\t tread\t carefully.\t I have\tvery\tlittle\trespect\tfor\tthe\topinions\tof\tsome\tof\tmy\tfellow\tcitizens.\tPerhaps\tI\u2019m arrogant,\tbut\tI\u2019m\tnot\tinclined\tto\tregard\tthe\tfact\tthat\tthey\thold\tviews\tdifferent\tfrom mine\tas\tstrong\tevidence\tthat\tI\u2019m\twrong.\tNor\tdoes\tour\tdisagreement\tlead\tme,\tin\tthe sceptical\tdirection,\tto\tdoubt\tthat\tthere\u2019s\tanything\tfor\tus\tto\tbe\tright\tor\twrong\tabout. But,\tthough\tfar\tfrom\trespectful\tof\ttheir\tviews,\tI\trespect\ttheir\tstanding\tas\tmy\tfellow citizens.\t I\t accept\t that\t their\t views,\t however\t misguided,\t should\t feed\t into\t our collective\tdecision-making\tprocesses\ton\tequal\tterms\twith\tmine.\tThat\tis\tthe\tfair\tway to\tmake\tpolitical\tdecisions\tgiven\tdisagreement\tbetween\tpeople\twith\tequal\tstanding. The\tdistinction\there\tis\tbetween\trespecting\ttheir\tviews\t(which\tI\tdon\u2019t)\tand\trespecting them\tas\tequal\tmembers\tof\tour\tpolitical\tcommunity\t(which\tI\tdo). A\t few\t pag es\t back\t I\t cited\t Ar neso n\u2019s\t instr umental\t appr o ach\t to \t the\t justificatio n\t o f","demo cr acy.\t Fo r \t him,\t to \t r epeat:\t \u2018Demo cr acy,\t when\t it\t is\t just,\t is\t so \t entir ely\t in\t vir tue of\t the\t tendency\t of\t democratic\t institutions\t and\t practices\t to\t produce\t outcomes\t that are\t just\t according\t to\t standards\t that\t are\t conceptually\t independent\t of\t the\t standards that\tdefine\tthe\tdemocratic\tideal.\u2019\tJeremy\tWaldron\t(b.\t1953,\tin\tNew\tZealand)\tthinks that\tthis\tmisses\tthe\tpoint:\t\u2018Any\ttheory\tthat\tmakes\tauthority\tdepend\ton\tthe\tgoodness of\t political\t outcomes\t is\t self-defeating,\t for\t it\t is\t precisely\t because\t people\t disagree about\tthe\tgoodness\tof\toutcomes\tthat\tthey\tneed\tto\tset\tup\tand\trecognize\tan\tauthority.\u2019 Knowing\twhat\twould\tbe\tthe\tright\tlaw\tis\tquite\tconsistent\twith\trecognizing\tthat\tothers disag r ee\t in\t a\t way\t that\t wo uld\t make\t it\t illeg itimate\t fo r \t yo u\t to \t impo se\t yo ur \t view\t o n them.\t The\t very\t fact\t that\t people\t disagree\t about\t what\u2019s\t right,\t and\t yet\t all\t are\t to\t be r uled\t by\t the\t laws\t that\t ar e\t made,\t means\t that\t we\t need\t a\t mechanism\t fo r \t dealing \t with that\t disagreement.\t That\t mechanism\t must\t itself\t be\t morally\t justified.\t Most philosophers\thold\tthat,\tin\tone\tform\tor\tanother,\tdemocracy\tis\tsuch\ta\tmechanism."]
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
- 223
- 224
- 225
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- 231
- 232
- 233
- 234
- 235
- 236
