["The\tvalues\tof\tdemocracy So\t far\t I\t have\t talked\t in\t rather\t general\t terms\t about\t the\t distinction\t between\t those values\t intrinsic\t to\t democratic\t procedures\t and\t those\t values\t that\t democratic procedures\t might\t help\t to\t realize\t instrumentally.\t Now\t it\u2019s\t time\t to\t be\t a\t bit\t more systematic\tabout\tthe\tdifferent\tconsiderations\tthat\tmight\tbe\tadduced\tin\teach\tcategory. Remember \t that\t these\t ar e\t all\t values\t that\t ar e\t claimed\t to \t tell\t in\t favo ur \t o f\t demo cr acy understood\tas\ta\tprocedure.\tWhat\tkind\tof\tdemocracy\tone\tfavours\tis\tlikely\tto\tdepend on\t which\t of\t them\t one\t thinks\t does\t the\t justificatory\t work.\t If\t your\t main\t reason\t for being\t a\t democrat\t is\t that\t democratic\t procedures\t respect\t citizens\t equally,\t then\t you may\t want\t a\t different\t kind\t of\t democracy\t from\t those\t who\t favour\t it\t because\t they think\t it\t tends\t to\t produce\t better\t citizens.\t If\t you\t value\t democracy\t because\t it\t yields political\t stability,\t then\t you\t will\t probably\t worry\t about\t different\t aspects\t of\t the procedure\tfrom\tthose\twho\tcare\tabout\tits\tproducing\tgood\tdecisions.\tIf\tyou\tthink\tthat several\t \u2013\t or\t even\t all\t \u2013\t of\t these\t arguments\t have\t something\t going\t for\t them,\t then you\u2019re\tgoing\tto\tend\tup\twith\tthe\tdifficult\tjob\tof\tdeciding\twhich\tkind\tof\tdemocracy yields\tthe\tbest\toverall\tpackage\tof\tthese\tdifferent,\tand\tsometimes\tconflicting,\tvalues.","Intrinsic\t1:\tfreedom\tas\tautonomy Back\t in\t Part\t 2,\t I\t set\t out\t various\t conceptions\t of\t positive\t freedom,\t one\t of\t which\t I called\t \u2018freedom\t as\t political\t participation\u2019.\t If\t you\t haven\u2019t\t read\t that,\t or\t don\u2019t remember\tit,\tthen\tit\twould\tbe\tworth\thaving\ta\tlook\tnow\t(pp.\t69\u201373).\tThe\tbasic\tidea is\tRousseau\u2019s,\tthat\t\u2018freedom\tis\tobedience\tto\ta\tlaw\twe\tgive\tourselves\u2019.\tPeople\tliving under\tlaws\tthat\tthey\thave\tmade\tfor\tthemselves\tenjoy\ta\tkind\tof\tfreedom\t(the\tkind\tof freedom\t called\t autonomy\t \u2013\t \u2018self-rule\u2019)\t not\t enjoyed\t by\t people\t whose\t laws\t were made\t by\t others.\t This\t is\t so\t even\t if\t the\t two\t sets\t of\t laws\t are\t exactly\t the\t same.\t This kind\t of\t freedom\t is\t intrinsic\t to\t democratic\t procedures.\t We\t don\u2019t\t need\t to\t know anything\t about\t their\t consequences\t to\t say\t that\t they\t give\t citizens\t the\t opportunity\t to rule\tthemselves.\t(Another\tway\tof\tthinking\tabout\tthis\tvalue\tis\tin\tterms\tof\tthe\tidea\tof freedom-as-non-dependence.\tFreedom,\ton\tthis\tview,\tmeans\tnot\tbeing\tdependent\ton the\twill\tof\tothers.\tThough\tdifferent\ttheorists\tdevelop\tthese\tideas\tin\tdifferent\tways, and\t freedom-as-non-dependence\t has\t attracted\t quite\t a\t bit\t of\t attention\t recently,\t for our\tpurposes\tthese\tare\tsimilar\tenough\tto\tbe\tdiscussed\ttogether.) The\t conception\t of\t freedom\t that\t is\t intrinsic\t to\t democratic\t procedures\t is\t very specific\tand\trather\tcontroversial.\tWe\tare\tnot\ttalking\tabout\tthe\tkind\tof\tfreedom\tthat might,\tor\tmight\tnot,\tbe\tallowed\tto\tpeople\tby\tthe\tcontent\tof\tthe\tlaws\tthat\tare\tmade.\tA liberal\t dictator\t might\t make\t laws\t that\t grant\t her\t subjects\t a\t good\t deal\t of\t individual negative\tfreedom.\tPerhaps\tshe\thas\tvery\trelaxed\tviews\tabout\twhat\tkinds\tof\treligious or\tsexual\tactivity\tare\ttolerable.\tPerhaps\ther\tviews\tare\tmore\ttolerant\tthan\tare\tthose of\t the\t great\t majority\t of\t her\t subjects.\t In\t that\t case,\t democratic\t law-making\t would result\t in\t less\t negative\t freedom\t for\t the\t individual\t than\t would\t be\t enjoyed\t under dictatorship.\t Of\t course,\t it\u2019s\t plausible\t that\t democratic\t decision-making\t procedures are\t more\t likely\t to\t secure\t negative\t freedom\t than\t are\t dictatorial\t ones.\t That\t may indeed\t be\t a\t g o o d\t r easo n\t to \t favo ur \t demo cr acy.\t But\t if\t that\t is\t the\t ar g ument,\t then\t it\u2019s consequentialist\t \u2013\t and\t it\t invokes\t a\t different\t conception\t of\t freedom\t from\t the\t one we\u2019re\tthinking\tabout\tnow.\tDemocracy\tis\tvalued\tas\ta\tmeans\tto\tthe\tend\tof\tfreedom- as-non-interference.\t That\t is\t quite\t different\t from\t the\t claim\t that\t democracy intrinsically\trealizes\tfreedom-as-autonomy\t(or\tfreedom-as-non-dependence). What\t should\t we\t make\t of\t that\t claim?\t Well,\t it\u2019s\t a\t problem\t that\t the\t outvoted minority\t do\t not\t rule\t themselves\t \u2013\t at\t least\t not\t in\t any\t straightforward\t sense.\t \u2018The people\u2019\t as\t a\t whole\t may\t enjoy\t the\t power\t to\t determine\t their\t collective\t affairs,\t by contrast,\t say,\t with\t dictatorial\t rule,\t or\t rule\t by\t a\t foreign\t power.\t (Nationalist movements,\tseeking\tto\tthrow\toff\tthe\tyoke\tof\tcolonial\trule,\tare\toften\tmotivated\tby\ta sense\t that\t their\t \u2018people\u2019\t have\t the\t right\t to\t self-determination.)\t But\t an\t individual member\t of\t a\t self-determining\t nation\t who\t has\t been\t outvoted\t on\t an\t issue\t does\t not live\tunder\ta\tlaw\tshe\tgave\therself.\tShe\tlives\tunder\ta\tlaw\tthat\twas\tgiven\tto\ther\tby\ther fello w\t natio nals.\t T hat\t may\t be\t differ ent,\t mo r ally\t speaking ,\t fr o m\t being \t g iven\t a\t law","by\ta\truling\telite\tor\ta\tcolonial\tpower.\tBut\tdoes\tthe\tdifference\treally\thave\tanything\tto do\twith\tautonomy?\tAs\tfar\tas\tthe\toutvoted\tindividual\tis\tconcerned,\tshe\tis\tnot\tfree\tto follow\ther\town\twill.\tShe\tis\tsubject\tto\tthe\twill\tof\tothers. There\tis,\tof\tcourse,\ta\tgeneral\ttension\tbetween\tthe\tlaw\tor\tthe\tstate\tand\tindividual autonomy.\t That\u2019s\t the\t tension\t emphasized\t by\t philosophical\t anarchists,\t who\t argue that\t the\t ver y\t idea\t o f\t autho r ity\t is\t inco mpatible\t with\t auto no my.\t Since\t the\t individual owes\tit\tto\therself\tto\tdo\twhat\tshe\tthinks\tis\tright\tat\tall\ttimes,\tshe\tcan\tnever\tbe\tjustified in\t defer r ing \t to \t the\t judg ement\t o f\t o ther s,\t and\t the\t state\t can\t never \t be\t r ig ht\t to \t demand her\t obedience.\t No\t kind\t of\t state,\t democratic\t or\t otherwise,\t can\t have\t legitimate authority\tover\tthe\tindividual.\tNow\tthe\tissue\tof\twhether\ta\tstate\tcan\tbe\tjustified\tat\tall is,\t of\t course,\t a\t big\t question,\t and\t not\t one\t I\u2019m\t going\t to\t venture\t into\t here.\t Our question\tis\tmore\tspecific:\tassuming\tthat\tstate\tauthority\tcan\tbe\tjustified,\twhat\tkind\tof decision-making\t procedure\t best\t respects\t the\t autonomy\t of\t individuals?\t This\t is so mething \t like\t the\t questio n\t Ro usseau\t sets\t himself:\t ho w\t can\t we\t live\t under \t law\t and yet\tbe\tfree? We\tknow\tthat\tthe\tstate\twill\trequire\tsome\tpeople\tto\tdo\tthings\tthey\twould\tnot\thave chosen\tto\tdo.\tIt\u2019s\tbecause\tpeople\tdisagree\tabout\twhat\tshould\tbe\tdone\tthat\twe\tneed\ta state\t in\t the\t first\t place.\t So,\t unless\t we\t go\t the\t anarchistic\t route,\t we\t must\t accept\t that ther e\t will\t be\t member s\t o f\t a\t state\t who \t ar e\t no t\t g etting \t exactly\t what\t they\t wo uld\t have wanted.\t So\t the\t argument\t for\t democracy\t that\t we\u2019re\t considering\t now\t cannot\t claim that\tdemocracy\tgives\tall\tpeople\tautonomy\tin\tthe\tsense\tof\ttheir\tnever\tbeing\tsubject to\t the\t will\t of\t others.\t It\t must\t hold,\t rather,\t that,\t given\t the\t inevitable\t conflicts\t that states\t exist\t to\t manage,\t democracy\t is\t the\t decision-making\t procedure\t that\t best respects\tpeople\u2019s\tautonomy\toverall.\tDemocracy\tgives\tmore\tpeople\tmore\tautonomy than\twould\tany\tother\tsystem. That\u2019s\t one\t way\t of\t approaching\t the\t issue.\t Here\u2019s\t another.\t An\t outvoted\t minority, forced\tto\tcomply\twith\tthe\twill\tof\tthe\tmajority,\tstill\tenjoys\tsomething\tnot\tavailable to\t those\t living\t under\t a\t dictator:\t the\t opportunity\t to\t take\t part,\t on\t equal\t terms,\t in making\tthe\tlaws\tthey\tlive\tunder.\tThat\topportunity\tdoes\tseem\tvaluable,\tand\thelpfully conceived\t as\t a\t variant\t of\t freedom-as-autonomy\t (or\t non-dependence),\t even\t where one\tis\toutvoted.\tOne\u2019s\topinion\thas\tbeen\tfed\tinto\tthe\tdecision-making\tprocedure\ton the\tsame\tbasis\tas\teveryone\telse\u2019s.\tOne\thas\thad\tthe\topportunity\tto\tpersuade\tothers\tto vote\tdifferently.\tOne\thas\tplayed\ta\tfull\trole\tin\tthe\tmaking\tof\tthe\tcollective\tdecision. This\tis\tso\teven\tfor\tthose\twho\tare\tmembers\tof\ta\tpersistent\tminority.\tIt\u2019s\tsometimes claimed\t that\t majoritarian\t democracy\t is\t maximally\t consistent\t with\t autonomy because,\t although\t everybody\t will\t be\t outvoted\t from\t time\t to\t time,\t the\t law\t of averages\t means\t that\t the\t individual\u2019s\t view\t will\t prevail\t more\t often\t than\t not.\t Other things\tequal,\tthat\tis\tindeed\ttrue.\tBut,\tas\twe\tall\tknow,\tother\tthings\tare\toften\tnot\tequal. It\t can\t easily\t arise\t that\t some\t subset\t of\t the\t population\t is\t outvoted\t time\t after\t time, hardly\tever\tseeing\tits\tviews\tmake\tit\tinto\tlegislation.\tThe\tsuggestion\there\tis\tthat,\tin\ta","democracy,\t even\t the\t members\t of\t that\t subset\t enjoy\t a\t kind\t of\t self-rule\t that\t they would\tnot\thave\tif\tthe\tlaws\twere\tmade\tby\ta\tdictator\tor\ta\tforeign\tpower. This\targument\tfor\tdemocracy\tis\tunder\tthe\t\u2018intrinsic\u2019\theading\tbecause\tit\tgives\tus reason\tto\tvalue\tdemocratic\tdecision-making\tprocedures\ton\tgrounds\tindependent\tof the\tcontent\tof\twhat\tgets\tdecided.\tRespect\tfor\tpeople\u2019s\tright\tto\trule\tthemselves\tdoes indeed\t lo o k\t like\t a\t value\t that\t mig ht\t pr o per ly\t co nstr ain\t the\t pur suit\t o f\t r ig ht\t answer s abo ut\t what\t the\t law\t is.\t As\t no ted\t ear lier,\t ther e\t is\t a\t clear \t similar ity\t to \t a\t co r e\t idea\t o f liberalism\there.\tIt\tmatters\tnot\tso\tmuch\tthat\tpeople\tchoose\trightly\tas\tthat\tthey\tchoose for\t themselves.\t Democracy\t looks\t like\t the\t same\t idea\t applied\t to\t politics.\t People should\t individually\t determine\t their\t own\t individual\t affairs\t (liberalism),\t and\t they sho uld\t co llectively\t deter mine\t their \t co llective\t affair s\t (demo cr acy).\t We\t mig ht,\t then, think\tof\tliberalism\tand\tdemocracy\tas\tfriends,\trather\tthan\tenemies.\tAs\tWaldron\thas emphasized,\t the\t fact\t that\t liberalism\t and\t democracy\t emerged\t at\t roughly\t the\t same time\t suggests\t that\t they\t share\t a\t common\t deep\t grounding,\t despite\t the\t superficial tensions\tbetween\tthem.\tIt\tis\tonly\tas\tpeople\tcome\tto\tbe\tconceived\tas\tpossessed\tof\tthe capacity\t fo r \t r atio nal\t self-deter minatio n,\t which\t is\t r eco g nized\t by\t liber al\t r ig hts,\t that they\t are\t conceived\t also\t as\t sufficiently\t rational\t to\t be\t capable\t of\t taking\t collective responsibility\t for\t themselves,\t which\t makes\t democracy\t \u2013\t rather\t than\t monarchy\t or aristocracy\t\u2013\tthe\tappropriate\tmechanism\tfor\tmaking\tpolitical\tdecisions. This\t all\t looks\t plausible.\t But\t we\t must\t not\t move\t too\t fast.\t The\t analogy\t between liber alism\t and\t demo cr acy\t is\t far \t fr o m\t per fect.\t Why\t sho uld\t we\t think\t that\t we\t have\t a right\tto\tan\tequal\tsay\tin\tdetermining\tthe\tcoercive\trules\tthat\tsignificantly\taffect\thow other\t people\t live\t their\t lives?\t It\t may\t indeed\t be\t that\t we\t have\t a\t right\t to\t control\t our own\tlives\t\u2013\tto\tthe\textent\tthat\texercising\tthat\tright\tis\tconsistent\twith\trespecting\tit\tin other\tpeople.\tIf\twe\twant\tto\tscrew\tup\tour\town\tlives,\tthat\tis\tour\tprerogative.\tBut\twhy think\tthat\twe\thave\ta\tfundamental\tmoral\tright\tto\texercise\tsignificant\tpower\tover\tthe lives\tof\tothers?\tIf\tthere\tare\tindeed\tgood\treasons\tto\tfavour\tdemocratic\tprocedures, it\tmight\tbe\tthought,\tthen\tthose\tmust\tinvoke\tthe\tclaim\tthat\tdemocracy\tis\ta\tgood\tway of\t making\t good\t laws.\t One\t can\t think\t that\t people\t have\t the\t right\t to\t make\t mistakes about\thow\tthey\tlive\ttheir\town\tlives\twithout\tthinking\tthat\tthey\talso\thave\tthe\tright\tto make\tmistakes\tabout\thow\tothers\tlive\ttheirs.","Intrinsic\t2:\tself-realization The\t idea\t that\t there\u2019s\t a\t kind\t of\t freedom\t achieved\t through\t membership\t of\t a\t self- governing\t political\t community\t is\t sometimes\t associated\t with\t the\t idea\t that participation\tin\tcollective\tdecision-making\tis\tan\tessential\tpart\tof\ta\tfully\tflourishing human\t life.\t This\t thought\t also\t came\t up\t in\t Part\t 2,\t when\t I\t noted\t that\t some\t theorists have\t equated\t freedom\t with\t self-realization\t and\t have\t claimed\t that\t self-realization consists,\t at\t least\t in\t part,\t in\t involvement\t in\t the\t life\t of\t one\u2019s\t polity.\t One\t of\t the distinctive\tfeatures\tof\thuman\tbeings\tis\ttheir\tcapacity\tto\tget\ttogether\tand\tdecide\thow they\twant\ttheir\tcollective\taffairs\tto\tbe\torganized.\tAnts\thave\textremely\tcomplicated and\t well-o r der ed\t patter ns\t o f\t inter actio n.\t Bees\t ar e\t ver y\t g o o d\t at\t building \t hives\t and giving\t each\t other\t the\t low-down\t on\t where\t to\t find\t nectar.\t But\t non-human\t animals cannot\treflect\ton\tand\tdiscuss\twith\teach\tother\tand\tcollectively\tdetermine\twhat\trules are\t to\t govern\t their\t interactions.\t That\t capacity\t is\t something\t specially\t human,\t and you\u2019re\t not\t fully\t human\t unless\t you\t do\t it.\t Man\t is\t a\t political\t animal.\t (In\t Greek,\t the wo r d\t fo r \t \u2018pr ivate\u2019\t is\t idios.\t In\t ancient\t Gr eece,\t anyo ne\t who \t co ncer ned\t himself\t o nly with\this\town\taffairs,\tdeclining\tto\ttake\tpart\tin\tpublic\tlife,\twas\tdeemed\tan\tidiot!) Only\t in\t a\t democracy\t do\t all\t citizens\t get\t to\t participate\t fully\t in\t political\t life\t \u2013 realizing\t their\t nature\t as\t creatures\t capable\t of\t political\t creation.\t This\t value,\t too, might\texplain\tsome\tof\tour\tantipathy\tto\tthe\tmodel\tof\tteledemocracy\toutlined\tearlier. People\tunthinkingly\tclicking\ton\ta\tcomputer\tscreen\tduring\ta\tcommercial\tbreak\tare hardly\tenjoying\tthe\tkind\tof\tself-realization\tthat\thuman\tbeings\tachieve\tby\tsharing\tin the\tshaping\tof\ttheir\tcollective\taffairs.\tIt\tmatters,\ton\tthis\tjustification\tof\tdemocracy, that\t citizens\t deliber ate\t abo ut\t ho w\t thing s\t sho uld\t be.\t Only\t then\t ar e\t they\t making \t full and\tproper\tuse\tof\ttheir\tdistinctively\thuman\tcapacities. I\u2019ll\t say\t a\t bit\t more\t about\t the\t significance\t of\t deliberation\t soon.\t Here\t it\u2019s\t worth being\tclear\tthat\twe\u2019re\ttalking\tnow\tabout\tthe\tkind\tof\tself-realization\tthat\tis\tachieved in\tthe\tvery\tact\tof\tparticipation.\tIt\u2019s\tnot\ta\tconsequence\tof\tthat\tparticipation.\tThere\tis\ta different\t way\t of\t thinking\t about\t self-realization\t that\t makes\t it\t something\t people achieve\tprogressively,\tthrough\tand\tas\ta\tresult\tof\tpolitical\tinvolvement.\tTaking\tpart in\t politics\t is\t good\t for\t people,\t on\t this\t view,\t because\t it\t acts\t as\t an\t educational\t or develo pmental\t pr o cess,\t enlar g ing \t their \t intellectual\t and\t mo r al\t po wer s.\t This\t idea\t is sometimes\t invoked\t to\t suggest\t that\t really\t giving\t political\t power\t to\t the\t people wouldn\u2019t\tbe\tas\tdangerous\tas\tit\tseems,\tsince\tthe\tvery\texperience\tof\tmaking\tdecisions tends\tto\tmake\tpeople\tbetter\tat\tit.\tI\u2019ll\tleave\tit\tto\tthe\treader\tto\tevaluate\tthat\tsuggestion. What\t matters,\t in\t our\t current\t context,\t is\t the\t kind\t of\t argument\t it\t is.\t It\t appeals\t to demo cr acy\u2019s\t co nsequences\t \u2013\t its\t beneficial\t effects\t o n\t citizens.\t Tr ue\t o r \t false,\t that\t is differ ent\t fr o m\t the\t claim\t that\t par ticipating \t in\t po litics\t is\t itself\t an\t essential\t par t\t o f\t a flourishing\tlife\tfor\thuman\tbeings.","Intrinsic\t3:\tequality The\t idea\t that\t demo cr acy\t is\t the\t law-making \t pr o cedur e\t that\t mo st\t r espects\t the\t equal standing\t of\t citizens\t is,\t for\t many,\t the\t very\t heart\t of\t the\t democratic\t ideal.\t Even\t if there\t are\t better\t and\t worse\t decisions,\t we\t disagree\t about\t which\t are\t which,\t and\t we disagree\t about\t which\t of\t us\t is\t more\t likely\t to\t make\t those\t decisions\t well.\t The\t only fair \t way\t to \t deal\t with\t that\t disag r eement\t is\t to \t g ive\t ever ybo dy\t an\t equal\t say.\t With\t the exception\tof\tchildren,\tthe\tmentally\timpaired\tand\tcriminals\t(who\tare\twidely\tthought to\thave\tforfeited\ttheir\tclaim\tto\tparticipate\tin\tcollective\tdecision-making),\tall\tshould be\tequal\tnot\tonly\tin\ttheir\ttreatment\tby\tthe\tlaw,\tbut\talso\tin\ttheir\tinput\tto\tit. We\u2019ve\t already\t seen\t that\t the\t idea\t of\t an\t \u2018equal\t say\u2019\t can\t be\t interpreted\t in\t various ways,\t with\t less\t or\t more\t radical\t distributive\t implications.\t That\t discussion\t was\t all about\t equality\t as\t a\t property\t of\t the\t democratic\t procedure,\t not\t of\t the\t outcomes\t it generates.\t Whether\t democracy\t produces\t egalitarian\t policies\t depends\t on\t what policies\t people\t vote\t for.\t Certainly\t a\t significant\t strand\t of\t anti-democratic\t thought has\t worried\t that\t democracy\t would\t tend\t to\t result\t in\t more\t equality\t than\t the\t anti- democrats\t judged\t desirable.\t And\t for\t some\t it\u2019s\t something\t of\t a\t mystery\t why democr acy\t hasn\u2019t\t led\t to\t mor e\t equality\t than\t it\t has.\t (Do\t most\t o f\t the\t people\t believe that\t inequality\t is\t actually\t a\t good\t thing?\t Are\t they\t ideologically\t conned\t into accepting\t its\t inevitability?\t Do\t we\t not\t in\t fact\t have\t the\t kind\t of\t procedural\t equality that\twould\tlead\tto\tmore\tegalitarian\toutcomes?)\tA\tprocedure\twith\tequal\tinputs\tmight be\t expected,\t other\t things\t equal,\t to\t lead\t to\t more\t equal\t outputs\t than\t a\t procedure\t in which\tinputs\tare\tnot\tequal\t\u2013\tassuming\tthat\tthose\tdoing\tthe\tinputting\tcare\tabout\tthe way\t o utputs\t affect\t them.\t But\t this\t is\t just\t an\t empir ical\t tendency.\t Co nceptually,\t equal influence\t in\t making\t the\t law\t is\t quite\t consistent\t with\t that\t law\t leaving\t lots\t of distributive\tinequality. So\tfar\tso\tgood.\tA\tgenuinely\tequal\tor\tfair\tprocedure\tmay\tgenerate\tdistributively unequal\t o utco mes.\t That\u2019s\t tr ue.\t But\t suppo se\t we\t think\t that\t a\t fair \t pr o cedur e\t r equir es more\tthan\tthat\tall\thave\tthe\tformal\tright\tto\tvote.\tSuppose\twe\tbelieve\tit\trequires\talso that\tcitizens\treally\tdo\thave\tan\tequal\topportunity\tto\tinfluence\tpolitical\tdecisions.\tAnd suppose\twe\tthink\tthat\tthis\tcondition\tis\tsatisfied\tonly\twhen\tall\tare\tproperly\teducated, or\t when\t none\t suffers\t the\t kind\t of\t poverty\t that\t effectively\t excludes\t them\t from\t the political\t process.\t (We\t might\t think\t that\t taking\t equality\t of\t political\t opportunity seriously\thas\teven\tmore\tradical\timplications,\tbut\tthis\twill\tdo\tto\tmake\tthe\tpoint.)\tIn that\t case,\t the\t maintenance\t of\t fair\t procedures\t itself\t sets\t limits\t on\t distributive outcomes.\tA\tpolity\tthat\tfails\tproperly\tto\teducate\tall\tits\tmembers,\tor\tallows\tsome\tof them\tto\tlive\tin\tsevere\tpoverty,\tis\teffectively\tdenying\titself\tthe\tpossibility\tof\tmaking decisions\tby\tfair\tprocedures.\tOf\tcourse,\tin\tthe\treal\tworld,\tpolitical\tdecisions\taren\u2019t made\tby\tthat\tkind\tof\tprocedure\tin\tthe\tfirst\tplace.\tFor\tsome,\tthis\tmay\tbe\tenough\tto r ender \t all\t such\t decisions\t illegitimate.\t But\t the\t point\t is\t that\t even\t in\t the\t ideal\t case\t \u2013","wher e\t all\t did\t g enuinely\t par ticipate\t in\t co llective\t decisio n-making \t o n\t equal\t ter ms\t \u2013 the\t importance\t of\t sustaining\t proper\t procedures\t would\t significantly\t constrain\t the range\t of\t possible\t outcomes.\t The\t general\t lesson\t is\t that\t the\t more\t content\t we\t build into\t our\t specification\t of\t democratic\t procedures,\t the\t less\t we\t leave\t open\t to democratic\tdecision.\tIf\tdemocracy\tmay\tnot\tlegitimately\tabolish\titself,\tor\tundermine its\town\tdemocraticness,\tthen\tsome\tissues\t\u2013\tthose\tthat\tconstitute\ta\tpolitical\tsystem\tas democratic\t\u2013\tcannot\tthemselves\tbe\tup\tfor\tdemocratic\tgrabs.\tAt\tthe\tlimit,\twe\tcould come\t up\t with\t such\t a\t thick\t understanding\t of\t what\t makes\t a\t democratic\t procedure legitimate\tthat\twe\u2019d\tend\tup\ttaking\tnearly\teverything\toff\tthe\tagenda\tfor\tdemocratic decision. Leaving\taside\tthat\tparadoxical\tpossibility,\tnotice\tthat\ttalk\tabout\tequality\tof\tinput leaves\t open\t the\t issue\t of\t what\t form\t that\t input\t takes.\t One\t way\t of\t treating\t citizens equally\t is\t simply\t to\t give\t all\t their\t preferences\t equal\t weight\t in\t the\t process\t of aggregation\tto\tform\ta\tcollective\tdecision.\tAnother\tis\tto\tgive\tthem\tan\tequal\tchance to\t influence\t collective\t deliberation,\t by\t presenting\t their\t reasons\t for\t preferring\t the decisions\t they\t prefer,\t and\t giving\t them\t equal\t opportunity\t to\t persuade\t everybody else.\t Here\t we\t touch\t on\t a\t key\t fault-line\t that\t runs\t through\t democratic\t theory.\t For some,\t the\t basic\t idea\t of\t democracy\t is\t that\t the\t people\t get\t what\t they\t want.\t The problem\tis\tthat\tpeople\twant\tdifferent\tthings,\tand\twhat\twe\tneed\tis\ta\tlegitimate\tway\tof combining\t their\t different\t preferences\t into\t an\t overall\t decision.\t This\t approach, so metimes\t called\t a\t \u2018so cial\t cho ice\u2019\t appr o ach,\t wo r r ies\t abo ut\t ho w\t best\t to \t ag g r eg ate individual\t preferences.\t (Some\t working\t in\t this\t tradition\t worry\t a\t lot\t about\t whether there\tcan\tindeed\tbe\tlegitimate\t\u2013\tfair\tor\tnon-arbitrary\t\u2013\tways\tof\taggregating\tthem.) Other\ttheorists\tcome\tat\tthe\tissue\tfrom\ta\trather\tdifferent\tangle.\tFor\tthem,\tdemocracy is\t not\t about\t adding\t up\t what\t people\t want,\t it\u2019s\t about\t collective\t deliberation. Democracy\tis\tnot\tmerely\ta\tmeans\tof\tturning\tpreferences\tinto\tpolicies;\tit\u2019s\ta\tmeans of\t tr ansfor ming\t pr efer ences\t themselves.\t Thr ough\t a\t pr ocess\t of\t democr atic\t debate, argument,\t reflection,\t hearing\t other\t people\u2019s\t point\t of\t view\t and\t responding\t to objections,\t democracy\t can,\t and\t should,\t be\t a\t way\t of\t changing\t \u2013\t and\t improving\t \u2013 people\u2019s\tviews,\tnot\tjust\tregistering\tand\tcombining\tthem.\tThis\tapproach,\twhich\thas become\t especially\t popular\t among\t theorists\t in\t recent\t years,\t favours\t \u2018deliberative democracy\u2019. On\t one\t view,\t democracy\t is\t like\t a\t market\t in\t which\t politicians\t and\t policies respond\t to\t what\t people\t want.\t On\t another,\t it\t is\t \u2013\t or\t should\t be\t \u2013\t a\t forum\t where citizens\t deliberate\t together\t about\t matters\t of\t common\t concern.\t If\t we\t hesitate\t to embrace\t teledemocracy,\t that\t may\t be\t because\t we\t hanker\t after\t at\t least\t some\t of\t the latter.\t T hat\t the\t peo ple\t make\t the\t decisio n,\t and\t do \t so \t o n\t equal\t ter ms,\t do es\t no t\t seem quite\tenough.\tWhy\tnot?\tOne\tanswer\twas\toffered\tunder\tthe\tprevious\theading.\tIf\tit\u2019s true\t that\t human\t beings\t achieve\t self-realization\t through\t collective\t debate\t and deliberation\tabout\ttheir\tcommon\taffairs,\tthen\tonly\tthe\tforum\tmodel\tproperly\tmakes","politics\tan\tarena\tfor\tthat\tachievement.\tAnother\tanswer\ttakes\tus\tinto\tthe\tcategory\tof outcome-oriented\t justifications\t of\t decision-making\t procedures.\t Perhaps\t our objection\t to\t teledemocracy\t is\t fundamentally\t a\t worry\t about\t the\t quality\t of\t the decisions\tit\tis\tlikely\tto\tproduce.\tGiving\tall\tcitizens\u2019\tvotes\tthe\tsame\tweight\tis\tindeed a\t way\t o f\t tr eating \t citizens\t equally.\t But\t the\t idea\t o f\t equal\t r espect\t is\t vag ue\t eno ug h\t to leave\t o pen\t what\t best\t co unts\t as\t r especting \t them\t equally,\t and\t it\t may\t be\t that\t the\t way we\tchoose\tto\tdo\tthat\treflects\tother\tconcerns.\tWe\tmight\tthink\tthat\tgiving\tall\tcitizens an\t equal\t chance\t to\t state\t their\t views,\t to\t respond\t to\t objections,\t to\t take\t part\t in\t the deliberative\tprocess,\tis\ta\tway\tof\trespecting\tthem\tequally\tthat\talso\ttends\tto\tproduce good\tdecisions. We\t shouldn\u2019t\t underestimate\t the\t extent\t to\t which\t political\t inequality\t has\t a damaging\timpact\ton\tthe\tquality\tof\tdecisions.\tMost\tof\tthose\twho\tobject\tto\tit\tdo\tso\ton fairness\tgrounds.\tIt\tdoes\tseem\tunjust\tthat\tcitizens\tare\tso\tunequal\tin\ttheir\tcapacity\tto influence\tthe\taffairs\tof\ttheir\tstate.\tBut\tinequality\tof\tinput\talso\thas\ta\tnegative\timpact on\tthe\tquality\tof\tpolitical\tdeliberation.\tThe\tlouder\tsome\tvoices\tare\table\tto\tshout,\tthe mo r e\t o ther \t vo ices\t ar e\t dr o wned\t o ut.\t Po litical\t influence\t is\t in\t lar g e\t par t\t a\t zer o -sum game.\t The\t more\t we\t hear\t one\t argument,\t the\t less\t we\t hear\t the\t others.\t That\u2019s\t not\t a recipe\tfor\tmaking\tgood\tdecisions. The\t democracy\u2013equality\t relationship\t raises\t other\t issues\t that\t can\t get\t only\t a mention\t here.\t One\t concerns\t the\t legitimacy\t of\t majority\t rule.\t There\u2019s\t a straightforward\t connection\t between\t equality\t and\t majoritarian\t decision-making. Going\twith\tthe\tmajority\tview\tseems\timplied\tby\tthe\trequirement\tto\tcount\teach\tvote equally.\t The\t alternatives\t involve\t giving\t the\t minority\u2019s\t votes\t greater-than-equal weight.\t Perhaps,\t however,\t we\t shouldn\u2019t\t just\t add\t up\t preferences\t on\t a\t one-person- one-vote\tbasis.\tPerhaps\twe\tshould\ttake\tinto\taccount\thow\tmuch\tpeople\tcare\tabout\tthe issue\tunder\tconsideration.\tWe\tshould\tfactor\tin\tthe\tintensity\tof\tpreferences,\tand\tnot just\t how\t many\t people\t have\t them.\t That\t might\t do\t something\t to\t protect\t minorities from\tthe\ttyranny\tof\tthe\tmajority,\tbut\tit\u2019s\tnot\tgoing\tto\thelp\tif\ta\tmajority\treally\twants to \t o ppr ess\t a\t mino r ity.\t Facto r ing \t in\t intensity\t co uld\t help\t with\t lukewar m\t majo r ities, but\t it\t doesn\u2019t\t avoid\t the\t deep\t problem.\t Better,\t perhaps,\t may\t be\t the\t move,\t sketched above,\t that\t seeks\t to\t derive\t respect\t for\t individual\t rights,\t as\t trumps\t against majoritarian\tdecision-making,\tfrom\tthe\tsame\tconcern\tfor\tequality\tthat\tjustifies\tthat procedure\tin\tgeneral. Another\tissue\tconcerns\tthe\targuments\tover\tdirect\tand\tindirect\t(or\trepresentative) forms\t of\t democracy.\t It\t seems\t obvious\t that\t direct\t democracy\t embodies\t equality mo r e\t fully\t than\t do es\t indir ect\t demo cr acy.\t In\t the\t fo r mer,\t all\t citizens\t g et\t to \t vo te\t o n laws\tdirectly.\tIn\tthe\tlatter,\tthey\tget\tto\tvote\tonly\tfor\trepresentatives\twho\tmake\tthose decisions\ton\ttheir\tbehalf.\tThis\ttwo-tiered\taspect\tintroduces\ta\tkind\tof\tinequality,\tand I\tsuggested\tearly\ton\tthat\tthis\tcan\tbe\tthought\tof\tas\tcompromising\tthe\tdemocraticness of\t the\t system.\t All\t this\t is\t true\t in\t principle.\t In\t practice,\t however,\t it\u2019s\t not\t absurd\t to","think\t that\t o ur \t system\t o f\t vo ting \t fo r \t r epr esentatives\t actually\t do es\t better,\t in\t ter ms\t o f equality,\t than\t would\t a\t direct\t procedure\t for\t making\t decisions.\t If\t all\t issues\t were decided\t by\t referenda,\t would\t people\t actually\t bother\t to\t vote?\t Some\t would.\t An unrepresentative\t minority\t of\t political\t activists\t would\t doubtless\t devote\t their\t time and\t energy\t to\t the\t business\t of\t making\t laws.\t But\t that\t hardly\t seems\t a\t good\t way\t of taking\taccount\tof\tall\tcitizens\u2019\tviews\tequally.\tFor\tall\tits\tfaults,\ta\tsystem\tin\twhich\tthe polity\t as\t a\t whole\t deliberates\t intensively\t every\t few\t years\t about\t who\t should\t make decisio ns\t \u2013\t and\t tho se\t elected\t kno w\t that\t they\t will\t have\t to \t stand\t fo r \t r e-electio n\t in\t a few\t years\u2019\t time\t \u2013\t may\t actually\t better\t embody\t equality\t of\t political\t influence\t than would\t a\t system\t that\t allowed\t the\t possibility\t of\t mass\t participation\t but\t actually consisted\tof\tminority\tactivist\trule.\t(OK,\tgiven\tcurrent\tturn-outs,\tit\u2019s\tpushing\tit\ta\tbit to\t suggest\t that\t national\t elections\t in\t the\t UK\t or\t the\t US\t count\t as\t \u2018intensive deliberation\tby\tthe\tpolity\tas\ta\twhole\u2019.\tBut\tyou\tget\tthe\tidea.)\tAs\tso\toften\tin\tpolitics, what\tlooks\tjustified\tin\tprinciple\tmay\tturn\tout\trather\tdifferently\tin\tpractice.","Instrumental\t1:\tgood\tor\tcorrect\tdecisions Let\t me\t turn\t now\t from\t values\t that\t might\t be\t realized\t intrinsically\t by\t democratic procedures\t to\t those\t that\t might\t justify\t those\t procedures\t on\t instrumental\t grounds. First\t up\t is\t the\t suggestion\t that\t democracy\t is\t a\t good\t procedure\t for\t making\t good decisions.\t A\t lot\t of\t relevant\t ground\t has\t already\t been\t covered.\t I\u2019ve\t challenged\t the idea\tthat\tdemocratic\tprocedures\tmake\tsense\tonly\twhen\tthere\tis\tno\tright\tanswer.\tAnd I\thope\tI\u2019ve\texplained\thow\tone\tcan\tregard\tdemocratic\tdecisions\tas\tlegitimate\teven\tif o ne\t thinks\t that\t ther e\t ar e\t r ig ht\t answer s\t to \t po litical\t questio ns\t and\t that\t demo cr acy\t is no t\t par ticular ly\t g o o d\t at\t finding \t them.\t Fo r \t many,\t the\t quality\t o f\t decisio ns\t is\t simply beside\tthe\tpoint. Still,\t there\t are\t important\t strands\t in\t democratic\t theory\t that\t do\t appeal\t to demo cr acy\u2019s\t tendency\t to \t pr o duce\t r ig ht\t answer s.\t One\t is\t asso ciated\t with\t the\t Fr ench philosopher\t and\t mathematician,\t the\t Marquis\t de\t Condorcet\t (1743\u201394).\t Condorcet showed\t mathematically\t that\t if\t the\t average\t person\t is\t more\t likely\t to\t be\t right\t than wrong\tabout\tsomething,\tthen\tthe\tmajority\topinion\tis\tvery\tlikely\tto\tbe\tright\tabout\tit. Quite\t ho w\t likely\t depends\t o n\t ho w\t many\t peo ple\t ar e\t co nsulted\t and\t ho w\t much\t better than\t random\t is\t the\t judgement\t of\t the\t average\t individual,\t but\t the\t probabilities\t get star tling ly\t hig h\t sur pr ising ly\t quickly.\t (Fo r \t example,\t if\t the\t aver ag e\t individual\t has\t a 55\tper\tcent\tchance\tof\tbeing\tright,\tthen\t399\tpeople\ttaken\ttogether\thave\ta\t98\tper\tcent chance\t of\t being\t so.)\t From\t this\t perspective,\t then,\t democracy\t is\t a\t good\t way\t of finding \t the\t co mmo n\t g o o d\t (o r \t whatever \t it\t is\t o ne\t is\t tr ying \t to \t identify)\t just\t because the\t laws\t of\t large\t numbers\t mean\t that\t many\t heads\t are\t better\t than\t one.\t There\t is\t a wisdom\t in\t crowds\t that\t makes\t consulting\t them\t a\t good\t way\t of\t ascertaining\t right answers.\t(We\tcame\tacross\tthis\tidea\tearlier,\twhen\tI\tsuggested\tthat\tbeing\toutvoted\ton something\t might\t give\t one\t reason\t to\t change\t one\u2019s\t mind\t \u2013\t not\t just\t to\t accept\t the legitimacy\tof\tthe\tmajority\tview.) Not\tconvinced?\tIf\tso,\tthat\tmay\tbe\tbecause\tyou\u2019re\tnot\twilling\tto\tgrant\tthe\tcrucial premiss.\tCondorcet\u2019s\tJury\tTheorem\tworks\tif\tone\tassumes\tthat\tthe\taverage\tvoter\tis more\t likely\t to\t be\t right\t than\t wrong.\t To\t be\t fair,\t Condorcet\u2019s\t approach\t doesn\u2019t require\tus\tto\tassume\tthat\tall\tvoters\thave\tthis\tlevel\tof\tcompetence.\tWe\tdon\u2019t\tneed\tall our\t fellow\t citizens\t to\t have\t a\t better\t than\t 50\t per\t cent\t chance\t of\t making\t the\t right judgement.\t We\t need\t only\t average\t competence\t over\t 50\t per\t cent\t (and\t normal distribution\t around\t that\t average).\t Still,\t it\u2019s\t obviously\t open\t to\t question\t whether vo ter s\t ar e\t o n\t aver ag e\t better \t than\t r ando m.\t If\t they\t ar en\u2019t,\t then\t Co ndo r cet\u2019s\t theo r em will\t immediately\t give\t grounds\t for\t rejecting\t democracy.\t If\t the\t average\t person\t is more\t likely\t to\t be\t wrong\t than\t right,\t then\t the\t last\t thing\t you\t want\t to\t do\t is\t give\t the decision\t to\t lots\t of\t people,\t as\t they\t are\t very\t likely\t to\t get\t it\t wrong.\t And\t there\t are other\tproblems\tin\tapplying\tCondorcet\u2019s\tindisputable\tmathematics\tto\tthe\treal\tworld. One\tis\tthat\tthe\tresult\trequires\tthe\tinputs\tto\tbe\tindependent\tof\teach\tother.\tIt\u2019s\tbecause","you\tare\taggregating\tindependent\tinputs\tthat\tmany\theads\tare\tso\tmuch\tmore\tlikely\tto be\t better \t than\t o ne.\t But\t in\t pr actice\t it\t may\t be\t that\t many\t peo ple\t vo te\t as\t member s\t o f factions\tor\tparties,\tin\twhich\tcase\tthey\tare\tnot\tfeeding\ttheir\town\tindependent\topinion into\t the\t procedure.\t (Rousseau\t opposed\t factions\t on\t the\t grounds\t that\t they\t hindered the\temergence\tof\ta\tgeneral\twill.\tSome\tinterpretations\tsee\thim\tas\tgesturing\ttowards this\tCondorcetian\tthought.)\tAnother\tdifficulty\tis\tthat\tCondorcet\u2019s\tresult\tapplies\tonly to\tdichotomous\tchoices\t\u2013\twhere\tvoters\tare\tchoosing\tbetween\tjust\ttwo\toptions.\tMost voting\tin\treal\tdemocracies\tis\tmore\tcomplicated\tthan\tthat. It\u2019s\tnot\ta\tgood\tobjection\tto\tthe\tCondorcetian\tapproach\tto\treject\tthe\twhole\tidea\tof r ig ht\t answer s\t alto g ether.\t His\t maths\t sho ws\t o nly\t that\t if\t ther e\t ar e\t such\t answer s,\t and the\t average\t voter\t is\t more\t likely\t to\t be\t right\t than\t wrong\t about\t what\t they\t are,\t then majorities\tare\tvery\tlikely\tto\tbe\tmore\tright\tthan\twrong.\tStill,\tapplying\tthat\tresult\tto r eal\t demo cr atic\t decisio ns,\t and\t invo king \t it\t to \t defend\t the\t claim\t that\t tho se\t decisio ns are\tlikely\tto\tbe\tright\t(and\tlegitimate\tbecause\tthey\tare\tlikely\tto\tbe\tright),\tis\tfar\tfrom straightforward.\t Condorcet\u2019s\t approach\t works\t if\t all\t votes\t can\t be\t treated\t as judgements\ton\tthe\tsame\tissue.\tBut\tit\u2019s\tunlikely\tthat\tvoters\tin\tcontemporary\telections do\t in\t fact\t see\t their\t votes\t in\t the\t same\t way\t at\t all.\t When\t I\t vote,\t I\t take\t myself\t to\t be giving\t my\t opinion\t about\t which\t of\t the\t options\t on\t offer\t would\t be\t best,\t all\t things considered,\t for\t my\t fellow\t citizens\t collectively\t (or\t something\t pious\t like\t that).\t But it\u2019s\t hardly\t crazy\t to\t wonder\t whether\t my\t fellow\t voters\t are\t not\t registering\t a judgement\t about\t that\t at\t all.\t Call\t me\t cynical,\t but\t I\t sometimes\t suspect\t that\t some\t of them\t ar e\t vo ting \t fo r \t whichever \t o ptio n\t they\t take\t to \t be\t in\t their \t o wn\t best\t inter ests.\t In that\t case,\t what\t is\t being\t aggregated\t by\t the\t voting\t procedure\t is\t not\t a\t set\t of judgements\t about\t the\t same\t issue\t at\t all.\t If\t so,\t we\t certainly\t cannot\t assume\t that\t the winning\toutcome\tis\talso\tlikely\tto\tbe\tthe\tright\tone. If\twe\u2019re\twilling\tto\tgrant\tCondorcet\u2019s\tassumptions,\tthen\this\tapproach\tdoes\tindeed suggest\t that\t democracy\t is\t a\t good\t way\t of\t making\t good\t decisions.\t His\t theorem\t is about\thow,\tgiven\tthose\tassumptions,\twe\tcan\taggregate\tindividual\tviews\tinto\ta\tview more\t likely\t to\t be\t right\t than\t any\t individual\t is.\t But\t there\u2019s\t a\t second\t way\t of\t seeing democracy\tas\thaving\tepistemic\tvalue.\tOn\tthis\tperspective,\tthe\tpoint\tis\tnot\tsimply\tto aggregate\tor\tcount\tviews\tand\tappeal\tto\tthe\tlaws\tof\tlarge\tnumbers.\tDemocracy\tis\ta deliberative\tprocedure.\tThrough\tdiscussion,\treflection\tand\tdebate,\tcitizens\u2019\tinitially uninformed\tand\tpossibly\tselfish\tviews\tare\tchanged\tfor\tthe\tbetter\t\u2013\tinto\tjudgements closer\tto\tthe\t\u2018right\tanswer \u2019.\tWe\u2019ve\talready\tcome\tacross\tthis\tidea,\twhen\tdiscussing the\tdifferent\tways\tin\twhich\tone\tmight\ttreat\tcitizens\u2019\tinput\tequally. How\t does\t collective\t deliberation\t improve\t the\t quality\t of\t decisions?\t Well, discussion\tand\tdebate\tare\tgood\tways\tof\tgathering\tgood\tinformation\trelevant\tto\tthe decision\t in\t question.\t Political\t decisions\t typically\t involve\t judgements\t about complicated\t empirical\t issues,\t and\t different\t people\t will\t have\t different\t views\t about the\t likely\t consequences\t of\t any\t particular\t policy.\t The\t process\t of\t critical\t cross-","examination,\t of\t empirical\t claim\t and\t counter-claim,\t is\t a\t valuable\t means\t of\t sifting through\tthe\trelevant\tevidence\tand\tcoming\tto\tan\tinformed\tview\tabout\twhat\tis\tindeed likely\tto\thappen\tif\ta\tparticular\tpolicy\tis\tput\tinto\taction.\tMore\tinteresting,\tperhaps,\tis the\tsuggestion\tthat\tdiscussion\tin\tthe\tpublic\tforum\timproves\tthe\tquality\tof\tthe\tmoral thinking\t that\t implicitly\t underpins\t political\t decisions.\t There\t can\t be\t sensible\t and rational\t debate\t about\t the\t relative\t importance\t of\t different\t values\t that\t might\t be promoted\tor\thindered\tby\tthe\tvarious\tpolicy\toptions\ton\tthe\ttable.\tIndeed,\tsome\thave suggested\t that\t collective\t deliberation\t encourages\t people\t to\t be\t public-spirited, motivated\t to\t pursue\t the\t common\t \u2013\t rather\t than\t their\t own,\t particular\t \u2013\t good.\t The very\tenterprise\tof\tdefending\tone\u2019s\tpolitical\tviews\tin\tthe\tpublic\tforum\trequires\tone to\t conceive\t and\t present\t them\t in\t terms\t acceptable\t to\t others.\t It\t just\t won\u2019t\t do\t for someone\tto\tdefend\ta\tpolicy\ton\tthe\tselfish\tgrounds\tthat\tit\twill\tmake\ther\t(or\tpeople like\t her)\t better\t off.\t And\t even\t if\t many\t claims\t to\t be\t furthering\t the\t common\t good start\toff\tas\thypocritical\tor\tdisingenuous,\tthe\tvery\trequirement\tto\tframe\tone\u2019s\tviews in\tways\tthat\tpresent\tthem\tas\tgood\toverall,\tnot\tjust\tgood\tfor\toneself,\tgradually\talters one\u2019s\t perspective\t on\t politics.\t The\t idea\t that\t democratic\t procedures\t may\t tend\t to improve\t the\t quality\t of\t political\t decisions\t has,\t then,\t both\t an\t informational\t and\t a mo r al\t aspect.\t Deliber atio n\t helps\t us\t to \t disco ver \t which\t ar e\t the\t best\t means\t to \t which ends,\tbut\tit\talso\thelps\tus\twork\tout\twhich\tends\tare\tbetter\tthan\tothers. The\t Condorcetian\t and\t the\t deliberative\t approaches\t posit\t quite\t different mechanisms\t by\t which\t democracy\t might\t tend\t to\t produce\t good\t decisions,\t but\t they ar e\t no t\t mutually\t exclusive.\t Co ndo r cet\t says\t no thing \t abo ut\t ho w\t individuals\t co me\t to their\t political\t judgements.\t It\t is\t quite\t consistent\t with\t his\t mathematics\t that\t citizens should\t formulate\t their\t views\t about\t how\t to\t vote\t through\t a\t process\t of\t debate\t and critical\t reflection\t with\t one\t another\t (as\t long\t as\t each\t ends\t up\t voting\t for\t what\t she really\tthinks,\tnot\tsimply\ttoeing\ta\tparty\tline).\tAnd\talthough\tthe\tdeliberative\taccount might\tposit\tunanimity\tas\tthe\tideal\t\u2013\tif\twe\ttalk\tabout\tit\tlong\tenough,\twe\u2019ll\tall\tend\tup agreeing\t \u2013\t in\t any\t real-world\t situation\t there\t is\t bound\t to\t be\t some\t residual disagreement\tand\tneed\tfor\ta\tvote.\tSo\tthere\u2019s\tnothing\tincoherent\tabout\ta\tconception of\tdemocratic\tdecision-making\tthat\treaps\tthe\tbenefits\tof\tboth\tstories.\tFirst\twe\teach try\tto\twork\tout,\tthrough\tcareful\treflection\tand\tdebate\twith\tone\tanother,\twhat\tis\tthe right\t thing\t to\t vote\t for.\t If\t the\t deliberative\t account\t is\t right,\t that\t process\t of deliberation\t will\t tend\t to\t improve\t our\t judgements,\t making\t it\t more\t likely\t that\t the average\t person\t is\t more\t likely\t to\t be\t right\t than\t wrong.\t Then\t we\t have\t a\t vote.\t If deliberation\thas\timproved\tour\tindividual\tjudgements\tsufficiently,\tthen\tthe\tmajority is\tvery\tlikely\tindeed\tto\tbe\tright.\tSo\tthis\thybrid\tmodel\tis\tjustified\ton\tthe\tgrounds\tthat it\ttends\tto\tproduce\tright\tanswers. Two\t final\t points\t about\t this\t kind\t of\t justification.\t First,\t the\t claim\t is\t not\t that democracy\t is\t legitimate\t because\t it\t always\t gets\t the\t answer\t right.\t It\u2019s\t justified because\t it\t is\t mo r e\t likely\t to \t do \t so \t than\t is\t any\t o ther \t pr o cedur e.\t It\t is\t in\t vir tue\t o f\t the","procedure,\t not\t the\t outcome,\t that\t the\t decision\t is\t legitimate;\t but\t what\t makes\t the procedure\tlegitimate\tis\tits\tepistemic\tvalue\t\u2013\tits\ttending\tto\tproduce\tbetter\trather\tthan worse\t decisions.\t On\t this\t account,\t then,\t it\t is\t perfectly\t coherent\t to\t accept\t the legitimacy\t of\t a\t democratic\t decision\t while\t believing\t it\t to\t be\t wrong.\t But\t its leg itimacy\t depends\t no t\t simply\t o n\t its\t emer g ing \t fr o m\t a\t fair \t pr o cedur e,\t o r \t o ne\t that respects\t citizens\u2019\t capacity\t to\t rule\t themselves.\t (Those\t would\t be\t intrinsic justifications.)\tWhat\tmakes\tit\tlegitimate\tis\tthe\tfact\tthat\tthe\tprocedure\tby\twhich\tit\twas made\t is\t more\t likely\t to\t get\t it\t right\t than\t is\t any\t alternative\t procedure.\t Rousseau thought\tthat\tas\tlong\tas\teverybody\twas\tgenuinely\tvoting\tfor\tthe\tcommon\tgood\tthen the\t minority\t must\t simply\t have\t made\t a\t mistake.\t (Actually\t Rousseau\t says\t various inconsistent\t things,\t but\t this\t is\t certainly\t one\t of\t them.)\t That\u2019s\t not\t quite\t right.\t The minority\t might\t be\t right.\t The\t reason\t why\t the\t minority\t should\t abide\t by\t the democratic\t decision,\t on\t this\t epistemic\t account,\t is\t not\t that\t they\t must\t have\t made\t a mistake.\t But\t nor\t is\t it\t that\t the\t decision\t emerged\t from\t a\t procedure\t justified\t on intr insic\t g r o unds.\t It\u2019s\t that\t the\t decisio n\t emer g ed\t fr o m\t the\t pr o cedur e\t mo st\t likely\t to have\tgot\tit\tright. Finally,\tthe\tjustifications\tof\tdemocracy\tconsidered\tunder\tthis\theading\tsee\tit\tas\tan instrument\tfor\tproducing\tright\tanswers.\tRight\tanswers\there\tmean\t\u2018answers\tthat\tare correct\t by\t standards\t independent\t of\t those\t that\t define\t the\t democratic\t ideal\u2019.\t This approach\t does\t assume\t that\t there\t are\t right\t answers\t in\t this\t sense.\t But\t it\t does\t not assume\t that\t we\t can\t identify\t them\t by\t means\t other\t than\t democratic\t procedures.\t It\u2019s perfectly\tcoherent\tto\tregard\tdemocracy\tas\ta\tgood\tprocedure\tfor\tmaking\tdecisions without\t having\t any\t idea\t about\t what\t would\t be\t a\t good\t decision\t in\t advance\t of\t the procedure.\t When\t people\t talk\t about\t democracy\t having\t epistemic\t value,\t they\t mean precisely\t that\t it\t can\t increase\t our\t knowledge,\t that\t it\t can\t be\t a\t way\t of\t discovering things.\tIt\u2019s\tnot\tsimply\ta\tway\tof\tlegitimizing\tdecisions\tthat\twe\talready\tknew,\tor\teven could\thave\tknown,\tto\tbe\tright.","Instrumental\t2:\tintellectual\tand\tmoral\tdevelopment\tof\tcitizens For\t some\t theorists,\t what\u2019s\t good\t about\t people\t making\t political\t decisions\t for themselves\t is\t no t\t so \t much\t that\t they\t will\t make\t g o o d\t decisio ns\t as\t that\t their \t making the\t decisions\t will\t make\t them\t better\t people.\t A\t system\t in\t which\t laws\t are\t made\t for some\t by\t others\t not\t only\t deprives\t those\t subject\t to\t those\t laws\t of\t the\t good\t of autonomy\t or\t self-rule,\t it\t stunts\t their\t development.\t Just\t as\t children\t cannot\t evolve into\t capable\t adults\t unless\t they\t are\t gradually\t given\t the\t opportunity\t to\t make\t their own\tdecisions,\tso\tnon-democratic\tsystems\tare\tinfantilizing,\tdepriving\tadults\tof\tthe chance\t to\t develop\t their\t intellectual\t and\t moral\t powers.\t There\t is\t an\t important overlap\t between\t this\t justification\t and\t the\t previous\t one.\t Citizens\t who\t have\t been given\tthe\topportunity\tto\tdevelop\ttheir\tpowers\tand\tcapacities\tare\tgoing\tto\tbe\tbetter at\t making \t po litical\t decisio ns.\t They\u2019ll\t be\t less\t selfish\t (that\u2019s\t the\t mo r al\t develo pment bit)\t and\t better\t at\t gathering\t and\t assessing\t information\t (that\u2019s\t the\t intellectual development\t bit).\t But,\t analytically\t at\t least,\t we\t can\t distinguish\t the\t quality\t of\t the decisions\t from\t the\t quality\t of\t the\t people\t who\t make\t them.\t This\t argument\t suggests that\tgiving\tpeople\tself-rule\tis\tthe\tbest\tway\tto\thelp\tthem\tgrow\tup. T his\t justificatio n\t o f\t demo cr atic\t pr o cedur es\t is\t also \t r ather \t similar \t to \t the\t intr insic one\tthat\tappeals\tto\tself-realization,\tto\tthe\tclaim\tthat\thuman\tbeings\tachieve\ta\tkind\tof flourishing\t through\t the\t very\t act\t of\t participating\t in\t the\t political\t life\t of\t their community.\t What\t we\u2019re\t talking\t about\t under\t this\t heading\t is\t the\t consequentialist version\t of\t that\t idea.\t The\t thought\t now\t is\t not\t that\t citizens\t achieve\t self-realization immediately,\t in\t the\t very\t act\t of\t participating.\t It\u2019s\t that\t participation\t is\t conducive\t to develo pment;\t it\t acts,\t o ver \t time,\t to \t chang e\t peo ple\t fo r \t the\t better.\t This\t is\t no t\t o nly\t a different\tkind\tof\tclaim,\tanalytically\tspeaking;\tit\u2019s\ta\tless\tsubstantial\tor\tcontroversial one\t also.\t The\t suggestion\t that\t democratic\t participation\t tends\t to\t have\t beneficial impact\ton\tcitizens\t\u2013\tand\teven\tthat\tit\tmakes\tthem\tmore\tfully\trealized\thuman\tbeings\t\u2013 involves\t less\t metaphysical\t baggage\t than\t the\t idea\t that\t such\t participation\t just\t is,\t in itself,\tan\tessential\telement\tof\tself-realization\tfor\thuman\tbeings. One\t feature\t of\t this\t justification\t gives\t it\t an\t element\t of\t paradox.\t The\t benefits\t to citizens\t that\t come\t through\t participation\t cannot\t be\t achieved\t if\t those\t benefits\t are their\t reason,\t or\t at\t least\t their\t only\t reason,\t for\t participating.\t Suppose\t you\t meet so meo ne\t o n\t her \t way\t to \t a\t po litical\t r ally\t o r \t demo nstr atio n.\t Yo u\t ask\t her \t why\t she\t is there,\t and\t she\t says\t it\u2019s\t because\t she\t thinks\t it\t will\t be\t good\t for\t her\t moral\t and intellectual\tdevelopment.\tSomething\thas\tgone\twrong.\tShe\thas\treduced\tpolitics\tto\tthe realm\t of\t self-help\t and\t personal\t growth.\t There\u2019s\t no\t problem,\t I\t suppose,\t in\t her believing \t that\t the\t activity\t will\t have\t that\t beneficial\t effect,\t but\t it\t seems\t ver y\t o dd\t fo r that\t to\t be\t the\t reason\t that\t motivates\t her\t to\t go.\t Her\t motivating\t reason\t ought\t to\t be something\t to\t do\t with\t the\t content\t of\t the\t principle\t or\t cause\t for\t which\t she\t is demonstrating.\tCitizens\tare\tsupposed\tto\tcare\tabout\toutcomes,\tyes;\tbut\tthose\tare\tthe","policy\t outcomes\t they\t are\t arguing\t about\t or\t demonstrating\t and\t voting\t for,\t not\t the outcome\t in\t terms\t of\t their\t own\t personal\t development.\t Indeed,\t since\t she\t wouldn\u2019t actually\tcare\twhat\tthe\tpolicy\toutcome\twas,\tsomeone\twho\ttook\tpart\tin\tpolitics\tonly for\tthe\tsake\tof\tpersonal\tdevelopment\twould\tnot\tbe\tgetting\tmuch\tof\tit.\tShe\twouldn\u2019t be\t seriously\t engaging\t with\t the\t arguments\t of\t others\t or\t responsibly\t exercising\t her agency\t as\t a\t member\t of\t her\t political\t community.\t The\t beneficial\t effects\t that\t come under\t this\t heading\t have\t to\t be\t by-products\t or\t side-effects\t of\t political\t engagement undertaken\tfor\tother\treasons,\tso\tit\u2019s\thard\tto\tsee\thow\tthese\tin-process\tbenefits\tcould play\ta\tmajor\tjustificatory\trole.","Instrumental\t3:\tperceived\tlegitimacy When\tmy\tfather\twas\tbeing\ttrained\tas\tan\tofficer\tin\tthe\tBritish\tArmy,\the\twas\ttold\tthat it\twas\tmore\timportant\tthat\the\tshould\tmake\tclear\tand\tconfident\tdecisions\tthan\tthat\the should\t get\t them\t right.\t (\u2018Nobody\t gives\t a\t damn\t what\t you\t decide,\t Swift.\t Just\t stop blithering\tand\tbloody\twell\tdecide.\u2019)\tIt\tmattered\tthat\this\tsubordinates\tshould\tregard him\t as\t knowing\t what\t he\t was\t doing,\t and\t so\t be\t willing\t to\t follow\t his\t commands. What\twould\tbe\tthe\tright\torder\tif\teverybody\tcomplies\twith\tit\tcould\tlead\tto\tdisaster\tif nobody\t does.\t Something\t similar\t applies\t in\t politics.\t It\t matters\t not\t only\t what decisio ns\t ar e\t made,\t but\t what\t peo ple\t think\t o f\t tho se\t decisio ns.\t Decisio ns\t need\t to \t be regarded\t as\t legitimate.\t Of\t course,\t there\t are\t ways\t of\t getting\t people\t to\t obey\t laws they\treject\tas\tillegitimate.\tStates\tcan\tuse\tthe\tpolice\tor\tarmy\tto\tenforce\tcompliance, and\t sometimes\t even\t democratic\t states\t have\t to\t do\t this.\t But\t that\t is\t expensive,\t and can\u2019t\tbe\tsustained\tfor\tlong\twithout\tserious\tmoral\tcost\talso.\tIt\u2019s\ta\tvaluable\tfeature\tof democracy\tthat\tits\tdecisions\ttend\tto\tbe\tperceived\tas\tlegitimate. Of\t co ur se,\t the\t r easo ns\t why\t demo cr acy\t mig ht\t tend\t to \t be\t per ceived\t as\t leg itimate have\t a\t lot\t to\t do\t with\t the\t reasons\t why\t it\t might\t indeed\t be\t legitimate.\t Presumably, people\t are\t willing\t to\t comply\t with\t democratic\t decisions\t because\t they\t respect\t the procedure\tthat\tmade\tthem,\tand\tpresumably\tthey\trespect\tthat\tprocedure\tbecause\tthey see\t that\t it\t realizes\t equality,\t or\t autonomy,\t or\t self-realization,\t or\t tends\t to\t produce g o o d\t decisio ns.\t That\u2019s\t tr ue,\t but\t it\t sho uldn\u2019t\t lead\t us\t to \t blur \t the\t distinctio n\t between leg itimacy\t and\t per ceived\t legitimacy.\t A\t r egime\t could\t be\t r egar ded\t as\t leg itimate\t by those\tsubject\tto\tit\teven\tif\tit\twas\tnot\tin\tfact\tof\ta\tkind\twhere\tthey\thad\tgood\treason\tto do\t so.\t For\t many\t centuries,\t England\t was\t ruled\t by\t monarchs\t who\t claimed\t to\t be Go d\u2019s\t r epr esentative\t o n\t ear th\t and\t to \t r ule\t by\t divine\t r ig ht.\t Many\t o f\t tho se\t subject\t to their\t commands\t accepted\t that\t claim\t and\t obeyed\t for\t that\t reason.\t Those\t kings,\t and their\t commands,\t had\t perceived\t legitimacy.\t But\t that\t legitimacy\t rested\t on\t the inculcatio n\t o f\t false\t beliefs\t in\t such\t a\t way\t that\t we\t wo uld\t no w\t want\t to \t say\t that\t their rule\twas\tnot,\tin\tfact,\tlegitimate. Since\t most\t of\t us\t believe\t that\t democracy,\t at\t least\t in\t some\t form,\t could\t be legitimate,\tthis\tpoint\tmay\tseem\tacademic.\t(That\u2019s\t\u2018academic\u2019\tin\tthe\tpejorative\tsense that\tcondemns\tmy\tprofession\tto\tthe\telucidation\tof\tirrelevant\tniceties.)\tTrue,\tthere\tis a\t definite\t analytical\t difference\t between\t the\t legitimacy\t of\t democracy\t (which\t on some\tviews\tderives\tentirely\tfrom\tfeatures\tof\tthe\tprocedure\titself)\tand\tits\tdecisions being\t perceived\t as\t legitimate\t and\t complied\t with\t for\t that\t reason\t (which\t is\t a consequence\tof\tthat\tprocedure).\tBut\tif\tdemocracy\tis\tindeed\tlegitimate,\tand\tis\trightly per ceived\t as\t being \t so ,\t what\u2019s\t the\t big \t deal?\t One\t answer \t is\t that\t we\t sho uldn\u2019t\t be\t to o quick\tto\tassume\tthat\tthe\tregimes\twe\tlive\tunder\tare\tin\tfact\tlegitimate\tor\tdemocratic. To\tshow\tthat\tdemocracy\tcan\tbe\ta\tlegitimate\tsystem\tfor\tmaking\tlaws\tis\tnot\tto\tshow that\t the\t system\t we\t in\t the\t West\t call\t \u2018democracy\u2019\t is\t indeed\t legitimate.\t Perhaps\t our","way\tof\tmaking\tlaws,\tthough\tdemocratic\tin\tsome\trespects,\tis\tnot\tdemocratic\tenough to\t be\t legitimate.\t Perhaps,\t for\t example,\t it\t lacks\t the\t kind\t of\t equality\t of\t political influence\t on\t which\t tr ue\t legitimacy\t in\t fact\t depends.\t Per haps\t law-abiding\t people\t in contemporary\tdemocracies\tare\tlike\tthe\tmedieval\tsubjects\twho\taccepted\ttheir\tking\u2019s claim\t that\t he\t had\t the\t right\t to\t rule\t them.\t Perhaps\t they\t too\t are\t wrong\t about\t the conditions\tthat\tmust\tbe\tsatisfied\tbefore\ta\tlaw\tcan\trightly\tclaim\tlegitimacy.","Conclusion Democracy\tis\ta\tcomplex\tideal.\tIt\tstands\tat\tthe\tconfluence\tof\tseveral\tdifferent\tvalues \u2013\tand\tdifferent\tkinds\tof\tvalue\t\u2013\tand\tit\tcan\tbe\tvery\thard\tto\twork\tout\twhich\tis\trelevant to\twhat,\tor\thow\tto\tcombine\tthem.\tSome\tclarity\tis\tgained,\tI\thope,\tby\tholding\tfirmly to\tthe\tidea\tof\tdemocracy\tas\ta\tprocedure.\tWe\tcan\tthen\tfocus\ton\tthe\tdifferent\tways\tin which\t procedures\t might\t be\t justified,\t intrinsically\t and\t instrumentally,\t and\t the different\tconsiderations\tthat\tcome\tunder\teach\theading.\tBut\treaders\tshouldn\u2019t\tworry if,\t having\t disentangled\t things\t analytically,\t they\t don\u2019t\t immediately\t have\t a\t clear picture\tof\thow\tto\tfit\tthem\ttogether.\tMost\tpeople\u2019s\tviews\tabout\tdemocracy\t\u2013\twhy\tit\u2019s g o o d,\t which\t kind\t is\t best,\t ho w\t much\t o f\t it\t we\t have,\t ho w\t much\t o f\t it\t we\t want\t \u2013\t tur n out\t to\t be\t an\t intricate\t and\t messy\t mixture\t of\t different\t thoughts.\t We\t are\t inevitably balancing\t different\t kinds\t of\t value:\t fair\t procedures\t against\t wise\t decisions, deliberation\t against\t the\t aggregation\t of\t preferences.\t And\t in\t assessing\t how\t much \u2018people\t power \u2019\t we\t really\t want,\t here\t and\t now,\t we\t quite\t properly\t have\t to\t factor\t in r eal-wo r ld\t co nsider atio ns,\t such\t as\t inequalities\t in\t po litical\t input,\t o r \t many\t peo ple\u2019s lacking\tthe\tskills\tneeded\tto\tmake\tpolitical\tjudgements\tabout\thugely\tdifficult\tissues. Ever ybo dy\t lo ves\t demo cr acy,\t and\t mo st\t peo ple\t think\t we\u2019ve\t g o t\t it.\t T hat\t can\t make democracy\tseem\trather\tinnocuous\tor\tinnocent,\tlacking\tthe\tcritical\tedge\tof\tsome\tof the\t other\t concepts\t discussed\t in\t this\t book.\t In\t fact,\t however,\t taking\t democracy seriously\t \u2013\t thinking\t hard\t about\t why\t it\u2019s\t valuable\t and\t what\t would\t be\t needed genuinely\tto\trealize\tthe\tvalues\tthat\tmake\tit\tso\t\u2013\tis\tan\textremely\tdemanding\tagenda. If\tit\treally\tmatters\tthat\tcitizens\trule\tthemselves,\tand\tthat\tthe\tdistribution\tof\tpolitical influence\tamong\tthem\tbe\tfair,\tthen\tdemocracy\titself\tdemands\tradical\tchanges\tto\tthe way\twe\tdo\tthings.\tIf\tgenuinely\tdemocratic\tprocedures\tproduce\tgood\tdecisions\tonly when\t citizens\t are\t skilled\t in\t the\t art\t of\t decision-making,\t then\t that\t increases\t those demands\t still\t further.\t Of\t course,\t democratic\t values,\t though\t important,\t are\t only some\t values\t among\t many.\t We\t may\t well\t want\t to\t limit\t the\t scope\t of\t democratic decisio n-making ,\t and\t be\t co ntent\t to \t sacr ifice\t demo cr atic\t values\t in\t o ther \t ways\t also , for\t the\t sake\t of\t other\t good\t things.\t But\t those\t politicians\t who\t are\t so\t keen\t to\t tell\t us how\t great\t democracy\t is\t are\t not\t wrong.\t It\t would\t be\t interesting\t to\t see\t them\t take seriously\tits\timplications\tfor\ttheir\town\tsocieties. Further\treading Robert\tDahl\u2019s\tOn\tDemocracy\t(Yale\tUniversity\tPress\t2000)\tis\ta\tshort\tand\taccessible introduction\t to\t normative\t and\t sociological\t perspectives.\t For\t a\t fuller\t version\t of Dahl\u2019s\t approach,\t try\t his\t Democracy\t and\t Its\t Critics\t (Yale\t University\t Press\t 1991), eng ag ing ly\t wr itten\t as\t a\t dialog ue.\t Ross\t Har r ison\u2019s\t Democracy\t (Routledge\t 1995)\t is useful\ton\tthe\tphilosophical\tside,\twhile\tDavid\tHeld\u2019s\tModels\tof\tDemocracy\t(3rd\tedn, Polity\t 2006)\t is\t a\t clear,\t nicely\t organized\t guide\t to\t the\t different\t institutional\t forms","generated\tby\tdifferent\tjustifications\tof\tdemocracy. At\ta\tmore\tadvanced\tand\tphilosophical\tlevel,\tthere\tare\tsome\texcellent\tcollections of\t academic\t papers\t on\t the\t issues\t covered\t here.\t Best\t overall\t for\t coverage\t and quality\t are\t David\t Estlund\t (ed.),\t Democracy\t (Blackwell\t 2002),\t and\t Thomas Christiano\t (ed.),\t Philosophy\t and\t Democracy:\t An\t Anthology\t (Oxford\t University Press\t 2003).\t Both\t have\t very\t good\t introductions,\t and\t helpfully\t group\t the\t articles they\t co ntain\t under \t heading s\t indicating \t the\t kind\t o f\t po sitio n\t being \t ar g ued\t fo r.\t Bo th also\thave\tsome\tpapers\ton\tdeliberative\tdemocracy,\tbut\tthe\tmost\textensive\tcollection on\t that\t approach\t is\t James\t Bohman\t and\t William\t Rehg\t (eds.),\t Deliberative Democracy:\tEssays\ton\tReason\tand\tPolitics\t(MIT\tPress\t1997). For\t readers\t with\t the\t energy\t for\t more,\t the\t following\t books\t are\t particularly important\t and\/or\t interesting:\t David\t Estlund\u2019s\t Democratic\t Authority:\t A Philosophical\t Framework\t (Oxford\t University\t Press\t 2009),\t Thomas\t Christiano\u2019s The\t Constitution\t of\t Equality:\t Democratic\t Authority\t and\t its\t Limits\t (Oxford University\t Press\t 2008),\t Jeremy\t Waldron\u2019s\t Law\t and\t Disagreement\t (Oxford University\t Press\t 1999),\t Amy\t Gutmann\t and\t Dennis\t Thompson\u2019s\t Why\t Deliberative Democracy?\t(Princeton\tUniversity\tPress\t2004),\tand\tDaniele\tArchibugi\u2019s\tThe\tGlobal Commonwealth\tof\tCitizens:\tToward\tCosmopolitan\tDemocracy\t(Princeton\tUniversity Press\t 2008).\t James\t Surowiecki\u2019s\t The\t Wisdom\t of\t Crowds\t (Little,\t Brown\t 2004) fascinatingly\texplores\tCondorcetian\tthemes\twithout\tmention\tof\tCondorcet.","Conclusion Since\t this\t bo o k\t hasn\u2019t\t made\t an\t ar g ument,\t it\t can\u2019t\t r eally\t have\t a\t co nclusio n.\t I\t have not\ttried\tto\tpersuade\tthe\treader\tof\ta\tparticular\tposition.\tRather,\tmy\taim\thas\tbeen\tto set\t out,\t and\t clarify,\t the\t issues\t that\t arise\t when\t philosophers\t discuss\t some\t key political\tconcepts.\tOf\tcourse,\twhat\tI\tcall\t\u2018clarification\u2019\thas\tan\targumentative\taspect to\tit.\tI\tam\targuing\tagainst\tthose\twho\thave\tconfused\tor\tvague\tviews.\tAnd\tsometimes a\t view\t clearly\t stated\t is\t immediately\t less\t plausible\t than\t it\t was\t when\t hazy.\t But, primarily,\t I\u2019ve\t been\t arguing\t against\t the\t confusion\t or\t vagueness,\t not\t against\t \u2013\t or fo r \t \u2013\t any\t o f\t the\t substantive\t po sitio ns\t that\t co me\t in\t co nfused\t o r \t vag ue\t fo r m.\t T ho se positions\tcan\tmore\tclearly\tbe\tunderstood\tand\tassessed\twhen\tthat\tconfusion\tis\tsorted o ut,\t o r \t when\t what\t was\t fuzzy\t has\t been\t made\t mo r e\t pr ecise.\t T his\t is\t just\t clear ing \t the decks,\tso\tthat\tuseful\trelevant\targument\tcan\tbegin.\tFor\texample,\tsome\tof\tPart\t4\ttried to\tshow\tthat\tmany\tcommunitarian\tobjections\tto\tliberal\tindividualism\tmisunderstand or\tmisrepresent\twhat\tit\tis\tthey\tare\tattacking.\tThat\twas\tan\t\u2018argument\u2019\tof\ta\tkind.\tBut the\taim\twas\tjust\tto\tget\ta\tbetter\tsense\tof\twhere\tthe\treal\tdifferences\tlie,\tand\twhat\tis\tat stake\tbetween\tthose\twho\tsubscribe\tto\tthe\tdifferent\tviews. If\t the\t book\t does\t have\t an\t overall\t message,\t it\t must\t be\t that\t this\t process\t of clar ificatio n\t is\t useful.\t T hat\t it\t do es\t indeed\t help\t us\t to \t under stand\t better \t what\t we\t and other\t people\t think\t about\t central\t moral\t issues\t in\t politics,\t and\t what\t we\t are disagreeing\tabout\twhen\twe\tdisagree.\tNothing\tI\tcan\tsay\tin\tthis\t\u2018conclusion\u2019\twill\thelp to\t persuade\t the\t reader\t of\t this.\t It\u2019s\t too\t late\t for\t that\t now.\t My\t discussions\t of\t social justice,\t liberty,\t equality,\t community\t and\t democracy\t will\t have\t made\t the\t case,\t or failed\tto\tmake\tit,\talready. I\u2019ve\tbeen\tquite\tcritical\tof\tpoliticians.\tThey\tuse\tconcepts\tin\tvague,\timprecise\tways. They\t sometimes\t like\t it\t when\t it\u2019s\t unclear\t what\t words\t mean,\t because\t then\t they\t can fudge\t disagreements\t and\t appear\t to\t be\t on\t everybody\u2019s\t side.\t They\t are\t reluctant\t to admit\t that\t the\t policies\t they\t advocate,\t though\t justified\t overall,\t will\t make\t some people\t worse\t off\t than\t the\t policies\t of\t their\t opponents.\t They\t misleadingly\t pretend that\tall\tgood\tthings\tgo\ttogether,\tso\tthat\twe\tdon\u2019t\thave\tto\tmake\thard\tmoral\tchoices. They\t go\t for\t the\t weakest\t parts\t of\t competitors\u2019\t arguments,\t and\t are\t quite\t happy\t to ignore,\t if\t they\t can,\t the\t bits\t that\t make\t sense.\t They\t will\t never\t admit\t that\t they\t have made\t a\t mistake,\t or\t that\t they\t have\t changed\t their\t mind\t about\t anything.\t They\t can","never \t say\t \u2018I\t do n\u2019t\t kno w\u2019.\t They\t ar e\t pr eo ccupied\t with\t r heto r ic\t and\t spin,\t r ather \t than with\t content\t or\t substance;\t what\t matters\t is\t how\t things\t sound,\t how\t they\t play\t to\t the electorate,\tnot\twhat\tthey\treally\tmean. Political\tphilosophers,\tby\tcontrast,\thate\tit\twhen\tthings\tare\tunclear\tand\twill\tharass one\t another\t until\t vagueness\t is\t dispelled.\t They\t have\t no\t problem\t accepting\t the necessity\tof\tdifficult\tchoices,\tor\tconcluding\tthat\tit\tis\tjustified\tto\tmake\tsome\tpeople worse\t off\t \u2013\t perhaps\t much\t worse\t off\t \u2013\t than\t they\t might\t otherwise\t be.\t They understand\tthat\tintellectual\tprogress\tis\tachieved\tnot\tby\teasy\trepetitious\texposure\tof the\t weak\t bits\t of\t their\t opponents\u2019\t arguments,\t but\t by\t painful\t and\t productive engagement\twith\tcogent\tcriticism.\tBeing\tcommitted\tto\tthe\tpursuit\tof\ttruth,\tthey\tare happy\tto\tchange\ttheir\tminds,\tand\tto\tadmit\tto\tchanging\ttheir\tminds,\twhen\tsomebody shows\t them\t they\t were\t wrong.\t They\t don\u2019t\t claim\t to\t have\t all\t the\t answers.\t Although apparently\t and\t self-indulgently\t obsessed\t with\t words,\t close\t inspection\t reveals\t the opposite:\t\u2018conceptual\tanalysis\u2019\tis\tjust\tthe\tonly\tway\tto\tget\tat\twhat\tpeople\tmean\twhen they\tsay\tthings.\tOnce\twe\tknow\tthe\tcontent,\tthe\twords\tused\tdrop\tout\tas\tirrelevant. Both\t these\t descr iptio ns\t ar e,\t o f\t co ur se,\t ster eotypes.\t So me\t po liticians\t do \t actually and\texplicitly\tconfront\tthe\thard\tchoices\tthey\ttalk\tabout.\tSome\tpolitical\tphilosophers are\tfamously\treluctant\tto\tadmit\tthat\tthey\thave\tchanged\ttheir\tminds.\t(\u2018But\tthat\u2019s\twhat I\t was\t saying\t all\t along.\t Thanks\t for\t helping\t me\t to\t put\t it\t more\t clearly.\u2019)\t Some politicians\t do\t accept\t that\t they\t have\t made\t mistakes.\t Some\t political\t philosophers ignore\tor\tevade\tthe\tgood\tobjections\tand\tmake\ta\tmeal\tof\tthe\tbad\tones.\tNonetheless, the\t descriptions\t do,\t I\t think,\t capture\t genuine\t differences\t between\t the\t two professions.\t Suppose\t this\t is\t so.\t The\t way\t I\u2019ve\t put\t it\t could\t be\t summarized\t as \u2018political\tphilosophers\tgood,\tpoliticians\tbad\u2019.\tBut\tis\tthat\tfair?\tAfter\tall,\tthe\tcriteria\tI am\t using\t to\t assess\t them\t are\t those\t that\t philosophers\t judge\t to\t be\t important.\t If\t we think\t about\t the\t comparison\t from\t the\t politicians\u2019\t point\t of\t view,\t things\t look\t rather different.\t Politicians\t operate\t in\t an\t environment\t that\t imposes\t constraints\t far\t more demanding\t than\t those\t faced\t by\t political\t philosophers.\t The\t competitive\t and confrontational\tnature\tof\telectoral\tpolitics\tmeans\tthat\tany\tadmission\tof\tignorance, change\t of\t mind,\t or\t acknowledgement\t that\t one\u2019s\t opponents\t might\t have\t got something\t right,\t will\t be\t seized\t on\t as\t incompetence,\t a\t \u2018U-turn\u2019\t or\t evidence\t of weakness.\tThe\tneed\tto\twin\tvotes,\tand\tto\tpresent\tone\u2019s\tparty\tas\tthe\trepresentative\tof the\tcountry\tas\ta\twhole,\tmakes\tit\tdangerous\tto\tconcede\tthat\tone\tis\tprepared\tto\tmake anybody\tworse\toff\tthan\tthey\tmight\totherwise\tbe.\tThe\tslightest\tslip\twill\tbe\tspun\tand exaggerated\t in\t the\t media.\t Moreover,\t politicians\t are\t expected\t to\t come\t up\t with concrete\t policies,\t not\t just\t abstract\t ideas.\t Policies\t that\t will\t work\t if\t they\t are implemented,\t and\t that\t have\t the\t popular\t appeal\t to\t stand\t a\t chance\t of\t being implemented.\tFor,\tunlike\tphilosophers,\tpoliticians\thave\tto\tget\telected.\tThis\trestricts their\t options.\t In\t terms\t of\t form,\t things\t must\t be\t kept\t simple.\t (Hence\t their preoccupation\twith\tsound-bites,\tslogans\tand\tthe\tcontinual\tsearch\tfor\tthe\t\u2018Big\tIdea\u2019","to\t lend\t a\t simplifying\t rhetorical\t unity\t to\t their\t position.)\t In\t terms\t of\t content,\t they must\t not\t be\t too\t far\t removed\t from\t current\t public\t opinion.\t (Hence\t their preoccupation\twith\tfocus\tgroups.) We\t should\t beware\t caricature.\t Political\t philosophers\t do\t consider\t the\t practical implications\t of\t their\t work.\t Many\t explore\t what\t policies\t would\t follow\t from\t their philosophical\t arguments\t in\t an\t ideal\t world,\t and\t many\t go\t further,\t taking\t on\t board the\t fact\t that\t political\t decisions\t have\t to\t be\t made\t in\t a\t context\t that\t falls\t short\t of\t the ideal.\tNonetheless,\t consideration\t of\t how\t best\t to\t realize\t the\t values\t they\t argue\t for, given\t the\t real\t world\t as\t it\t actually\t is,\t may\t well\t raise\t questions\t that\t go\t beyond philosophers\u2019\t expertise.\t The\t answers\t will\t depend\t on\t empirical\t information\t \u2013 detailed\tknowledge\tabout\thow\tthe\tworld\tworks\t\u2013\tthat\tthe\tpolitical\tphilosopher\tmay not\tbe\tin\ta\tgood\tposition\tto\tacquire\tor\tjudge.\tNor\tdo\tpolitical\tphilosophers\twant\tto g et\t to o \t co ncer ned\t with\t the\t sellability,\t the\t po pular \t appeal,\t o f\t their \t co nclusio ns.\t Fo r them,\t that\t looks\t like\t unacceptable\t compromise.\t \u2018Perhaps\t the\t truth\t just\t is\t too complicated\tto\tbe\tpackaged\tin\tsound-bites.\tWhy\texpect\tthe\tright\tanswers\tto\tdifficult philosophical\tquestions\tto\tbe\treadily\tintelligible\tto\teverybody?\tWhy\texpect\tpeople to\t agree\t with\t our\t answers\t if\t they\t did\t understand\t them?\t So\t what\t if,\t for\t example, ordinary\t people\t disagree\t with\t our\t belief\t that\t conventional\t desert\t claims\t are mistaken\t\u2013\ta\tbelief\twe\u2019ve\tthought\tabout\tlong\tand\thard?\tIf\tthey\tare\twrong,\tthey\tare wrong.\tWe\tare\tphilosophers,\tengaged\tin\tthe\tpursuit\tof\ttruth.\tYou\tcan\u2019t\texpect\tus\tto take\tpopular\topinion\tinto\taccount\twhen\tcoming\tto\tour\tconclusions.\u2019 Fr o m\t the\t po litician\u2019s\t per spective,\t this\t is,\t putting \t it\t po litely,\t unhelpful.\t \u2018So me\t o f you\t philosophers\t say\t that\t top\t athletes\t don\u2019t\t deserve\t to\t earn\t more\t than\t social workers.\tSuppose\tyou\u2019re\tright.\tUnless\tyou\tcan\ttell\tme\tthe\timplications\tfor\twhat\tmy g o ver nment\t sho uld\t do \t \u2013\t her e\t and\t no w,\t no t\t in\t an\t ideal\t uto pia\t \u2013\t yo u\t ar e\t no \t help\t at all.\t And\t unless\t you\t can\t show\t me\t how\t to\t persuade\t voters\t that\t they\t are\t wrong\t to believe\t what\t they\t cur r ently\t believe,\t we\u2019d\t g et\t blo wn\t o ut\t o f\t the\t water \t co me\t the\t next election\tin\tany\tcase.\tThat\tmeans\tnot\tjust\tpresenting\tvalid\targuments,\tbut\tpresenting them\tin\tsuch\ta\tway\tthat\tthey\twill\tbe\tseen\tto\tbe\tvalid,\twhich\tmeans\tthat\tthey\tmust\tbe simple\tand\taccessible.\tOh,\tand\twhile\tyou\u2019re\tat\tit,\tremember\tthat\tevery\tword\twill\tbe carefully\t examined\t for\t the\t possibility\t of\t its\t being\t twisted\t into\t something\t that\t our opponents\twould\tlike\tus\tto\thave\tsaid.\u2019 It\tis\thard\tnot\tto\tbe\tsympathetic\tto\tthis\tresponse.\tPolitical\tphilosophers\tinclined\tto grumble\t about\t the\t philosophical\t failings\t of\t politicians\t must\t take\t into\t account\t the quite\t different\t natures\t of\t the\t two\t enterprises.\t Philosophers\t can\t take\t a\t long-term view,\t aiming\t to\t change\t public\t opinion,\t not\t merely\t to\t accommodate\t it.\t Politicians have\t a\t more\t immediate\t agenda.\t While\t not\t leaving\t themselves\t at\t the\t mercy\t of uninformed\t popular\t prejudice,\t they\t must,\t if\t they\t are\t to\t be\t successful,\t take\t the electorate\twith\tthem.\tThey\tmust\talso\thave\ta\trealistic\tsense\tof\twhat\twill\tand\twill\tnot work,\t in\t terms\t of\t policy,\t given\t people\t as\t they\t actually\t are.\t To\t take\t a\t concrete","example\t fr o m\t Par t\t 3,\t a\t po litician\t co ncer ned\t to \t maximize\t the\t po sitio n\t o f\t the\t wo r st off\t must\t devise\t tax\t rates\t that\t are\t informed\t by\t knowledge\t about\t people\u2019s motivational\t structures.\t It\t would\t be\t no\t good\t at\t all\t to\t set\t rates\t on\t the\t mistaken assumption\tthat\tpeople\twill\twork\tjust\tas\thard\twhen\tthey\tare\ttaxed\tat\t80\tper\tcent\tas\tat 40\t per\t cent.\t But\t how\t hard\t people\t are\t prepared\t to\t work\t at\t what\t rates\t of\t tax\t is\t not fixed.\tIt\tmay\tbe\tgiven\tat\tany\tparticular\ttime\t\u2013\tand\tas\tsuch\tbe\tpart\tof\tthe\tinformation that\t feeds\t in\t to\t the\t politician\u2019s\t calculations\t \u2013\t but\t it\t is\t not\t given\t for\t all\t time.\t It depends\ton\tpeople\u2019s\tattitudes\tto\tone\tanother,\tto\ttheir\tgovernment,\tto\ttheir\twork,\tand so\ton.\tThese\tare\tthe\tvery\tattitudes\tthat\tmore\tabstract\tpolitical\tphilosophers\tcan\tseek to\tchange. Politics\t is\t not\t a\t wholly\t rational\t activity.\t It\t would\t be\t naive\t to\t expect\t the\t careful exposition\tof\tclear\targuments\tsimply\tto\ttriumph\tover\temotion\tand\tprejudice.\tThere may\t well\t be\t good\t strategic\t reasons\t for\t politicians\t to\t do\t some\t pandering\t to\t the sentiments,\t co nfusio ns\t and\t false\t beliefs\t o f\t tho se\t they\t want\t to \t vo te\t fo r \t them.\t If,\t by doing\tso,\tthey\tget\telected\tand\tmake\tthe\tworld\ta\tbetter\tplace\tthan\tit\twould\totherwise have\t been,\t those\t strategic\t reasons\t may\t also\t be\t moral\t reasons.\t So\t I\u2019m\t not\t always against\tpoliticians\tsaying\tthings\tthat\tare\tvague\tand\tmistaken.\tSometimes\tthat\tmight be\t the\t right\t thing\t to\t do.\t But\t that\t is\t an\t argument\t for\t saying\t vague\t and\t mistaken things.\tIt\tis\tnot\tan\targument\tfor\tholding\tvague\tand\tmistaken\tbeliefs.\tWhen\tit\tcomes to\tthinking,\tclarity,\tprecision\tand\ttruth\thave\tto\tbe\tbetter\tthan\tthe\talternatives.\tThere may\t be\t strategic\t reasons\t for\t politicians\t not\t to\t be\t too\t philosophically\t pure\t in\t the positions\t they\t present\t to\t voters.\t But\t that\u2019s\t no\t reason\t for\t them\t to\t be\t unclear\t about what\tthey\treally\tbelieve,\tabout\twhat\tvalues\tthey\texpect\tsuch\ta\tstrategy\tto\trealize,\tand why\tthey\tendorse\tthose\tvalues. It\tmakes\tsense\tto\tgo\tfor\ta\tdivision\tof\tlabour.\tThose\tbest\tsuited\tto\tabstraction\tand precision\tshould\tpursue\tthem.\tThose\tadept\tat\ttranslating\tabstract\tideas\tinto\tconcrete policies\tshould\twork\ton\tthat.\tThose\tskilled\tat\tselling\tboth\tideas\tand\tpolicies\tto\tthe electorate\tshould\tdo\tso.\tPolitical\tphilosophers\tare\tlucky\tenough\tto\thave\tthe\ttime\tto work\tthrough\tideas\tcarefully,\tand\tcan\tmake\tmistakes\twithout\tlosing\ttheir\tjobs.\tFor the\t division\t of\t labour\t approach\t to\t be\t effective,\t we\t must\t make\t the\t fruits\t of\t our collective\t efforts\t accessible\t to\t those\t \u2013\t voters\t as\t well\t as\t politicians\t \u2013\t who\t do\t not enjoy\tsuch\tluxuries.\tThat\u2019s\twhat\tI\thave\ttried\tto\tdo\tin\tthis\tbook. Further\treading If\tyou\u2019ve\tgot\tto\tthe\tend\tof\tthis\tbeginners\u2019\tguide\tyou\u2019re\tprobably\tready\tfor\tthe\tmore advanced\ttextbooks\tmentioned\tat\tthe\tend\tof\tmy\tIntroduction\t(pp.\t9\u201310).\tThose\twith the\t energy\t for\t state-of-the-art\t survey\t articles\t across\t the\t full\t range\t of\t political philosophy\t should\t try\t D.\t Estlund\t (ed.),\t The\t Oxford\t Handbook\t of\t Political Philosophy\t (Oxford\t University\t Press\t 2012)\t and\t the\t Stanford\t Encyclopedia\t of Philosophy\t(http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu),\twhich\tis\ta\twonderful,\tfree,\tonline\tresource.","Index abortion\t168 Afghanistan\t68,\t79 agents\tand\tliberty\tsee\tself,\tdivided alienation\t80\u20131,\t144,\t183 American\tCivil \tLiberties\tU nion\t154 anarchism\t214 see\talso\tN ozick,\tRobert Anderson,\tElizabeth\t141 appropriation\tsee\tproperty Archibugi,\tDaniele\t231 aristocracy,\tenlightened\t189 Aristotle\t4,\t9,\t11,\t70 Arneson,\tRichard\t203,\t211 arts,\tpublic\tfunding\tof\t20,\t164\u20135,\t166 association freedom\tof\t18,\t26 duties\tof\t51\u20133 Athens,\tancient\t190 Australia\t34,\t73 authority,\tof\tthe\tstate\tsee\tstate,\tauthority\tof autonomy and\tchildren\t84,\t160\u20131,\t173\u20134;\tsee\talso\teducation and\tliberty\tsee\tliberty,\tas\tautonomy Avineri,\tShlomo\t185 Bahamas,\tholidays\tin\t61\u20133,\t76 Baker,\tJohn\t142 Balmoral\t74,\t76,\t81 Barker,\tPaul\t94 Barry,\tBrian\t56,\t185 basic\tliberties\t25\u20137 Bell,\tDaniel\t185 benevolent\tdictator\t189 Bentham,\tJeremy\t127,\t156 Berlin,\tIsaiah\tix,\txii,\t57\u201363,\t66\u20139,82\u20134,\t88\u201390,\t92\u20133 Big\tSociety\t5,\t145 Blair,Tony\tix,\t57\u20138,\t61\u20132,\t69,\t83,\t93,\t168 Bohman,\tJames\t231 Bol t,\tU sain\txii,\t41\u20132,\t47,\t54 Borgias,\tthe\t19 brain\tsurgeons vs.\tnurses\t47\u20138","vs.\tpoets\t26 under\tstress\t137 see\talso\tsurgeons,\tand\tfreedom\tof\toccupational\tchoice Brighouse,\tHarry\t55 Brooks,Thom\t56 Burke,\tEdmund\t183,\t196 Callinicos,\tAlex\t142 Cambridge,\tU niversity\tof\t20 campaigns,\tfunding\tof\tpolitical\t100,\t199, Campbell,Tom\t55 Carens,\tJoseph\t135,\t142 Carter,\tIan\t93 Casal,\tPaula\t141 catallaxy\t21 Catholicism\t168,\t174,\t184 Chamberlain,Wilt\tsee\tWilt Chamberlain\texample Chambers,\tClare\t142 charitable\treading\tof\ttexts\t171 charity\t14,\t16,\t22,\t50 childcare\t112\u201315 Child\tSupport\tAgency\t154 children choices\tmade\tby\t44 see\talso\tautonomy,\tand\tchildren;\teducation choice\t43\u20134,\t154 see\talso\tconceptions\tof\tthe\tgood,\tframing,\trevising\tand\tpursuing Christianity\t25 Christiano,Thomas\t231 Churchill,Winston,\t203 citizens,\tas\tfree\tand\tequal\t24\u20135,\t30,\t38,\t97\u20138,\t133,\t140,\t161\u20134,\t173,177 see\talso\tdemocracy,\tand\tequality\tof\topportunity\tfor\tinfluence;\tdemocracy,\tand\trespect;\tequality,\tof\trespect citizenship\trights\t100\u20132,\t121 citizenship\tsee\tcommunity,\tsense\tof;\tnationality class\tbackground\tand\tlife\tchances\t104\u20139,\t124\u20136 see\talso\teducation class\twar\t95 Clayton,\tMatthew\t55,\t141 coercion\tsee\tstate,\tas\tcoercive\tapparatus Cohen,\tG.\tA.\txii,\t74\u20135,\t94,\t142 Cold\tWar\t68 commitment,\tstrains\tof\t26 common\tgood\tsee\tshared\tunderstandings;\tvalues communism\t62,\t138 communitarianism defined\t143\u20136 vs.\tliberalism\t31,\t143\u201364 community defined\t145\u20136 imagined\t181 liberal\t176\u201382 priority\tof\t158\u201361,\t169 sense\tof\t149\u201350,\t176\u201382;\tsee\talso\tindividualism;\tliberalism;\tvalues,\tshared compensation\tsee\tdesert","conceptions\tof\tthe\tgood comprehensive\tvs.\tpolitical\t165\u20136,\t173\u20134 framing,\trevising\tand\tpursuing\t24\u20137,\t40,\t91,\t146,\t166 ignorance\tof\tsee\tveil\tof\tignorance incommensurability\tof\t90 concepts\tvs.\tconceptions\t13\u201314,\t59\u201360 concepts,\tdefinition\tof\t103 see\talso\tpolitical\tphilosophy\tas\tconceptual\tanalysis;\tvalues,\tdisagreement\ton Condorcet,\tMarquis\tde\t222,\t231 Condorcet\u2019s\tJury\tTheorem,\t206,\t222\u20136 consensus\tsee\tvalues,\tshared conservatism,\tcompassionate\t144 constraints\tsee\tliberty cosmopolitanism\t49\u201353,\t178\u201382 cultural\tgroups\tsee\tmulticulturalism Dahl,\tRobert\t230\u20131 Darwall,\tStephen\t142 Darwin,\tCharles\t5 democracy degrees\tof\t192\u2013202 deliberative\t219\u201320,\t224\u20136 and\tdevelopment\tof\tcitizens\t226\u20138;\tsee\talso\tMill,\tJohn\tStuart direct\t192\u20135 different\tfrom\tparticipatory\t193\u20135 and\tsize\tof\tthe\tpolity\t190 as\tutopian\t190 and\tdisagreement\t208\u201311 and\teducation\t197,\t218,\t226\u20138 and\tequality\t197\u20139,\t217\u201321 and\tequality\tof\topportunity\tfor\tinfluence\t197\u20139,\t217\u201321 democracy\t(cont.) and\tjustice\t17\u201319 indirect\t192\u20133;\tsee\talso\tdemocracy,\trepresentative instrumental\tvs.\tintrinsic\tvalue\tof\t191,\t202\u20135,\t211\u201329 and\tliberalism\t216 and\tlottery\t196\u20137 paradox\tof\t205\u20138 procedural\tvs.\toutcome-based\tconceptions\tof\t202\u20135 rhetoric\tof\t187\u20138 representative and\taccountability\t195\u20137 and\tepistemic\tvalue\tof\tparliamentary\tdebates\t196 and\trespect\t210\u201311;\tsee\talso\tcitizens,\tas\tfree\tand\tequal;\tequality,\tof\trespect scope\tof\t188\u20139,\t199\u2013202 social\tchoice\tapproach\tto\t219 and\tstability\t205 and\ttension\twith\tpolitical\tphilosophy\t191 values\tof\t211\u201329;\tsee\talso\tliberty,\tas\tpolitical\tparticipation dependence,\tculture\tof\t95 desert as\tcompensation\t46\u20137,\t137\u20138 as\tconsequentialist\tclaim\t47\u20138;\tsee\talso\tdifference\tprinciple and\teffort\t42\u20134 and\tjustice\tsee\tjustice,\tas\tdesert","as\tlegitimate\texpectations\t45\u20136 three\tviews\ton\t42\u20134 de-Shalit,\tAvner\t185 desires first-order\tvs.\tsecond-order\t87\u20138;\tsee\talso\tself,\tdivided as\tobstacles\tto\tfreedom\t80\u20133 and\trationality\t86\u20138 dictatorship\t189 difference\tprinciple as\tassuming\tequality\tof\tcitizens\t133 defined\t26\u20137,\t54;\tsee\talso\tequality;\tjustice;\tmaximin as\texpressing\ta\tsense\tof\tfraternity\t123,\t151 global\t49 and\tincentives\t134\u20139,\t236 objections\tto\t27\u20139 and\tpositional\tgoods\t124 and\tpriority\tto\tthe\tworse\toff\t130\u20131 diminishing\tprinciples\t129\u201330 discrimination\t97\u20139,\t103 see\talso\tequality\tof\topportunity,\tthree\tconceptions\tof;\toppression disagreement\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\tdisagreement;\tvalues,\tdisagreement\ton distributive\tparadigm\t111 domestic\tlabour\t114 drug\taddiction\t85,\t89,\t91 Dworkin,\tRonald\txii,\t73\u20135,\t94,\t141,\t201 economic\tl iberal ism\tsee\tN ew\tRight education and\tautonomy\t66\u20137,\t83\u20134,\t160\u20131;\tsee\talso\tautonomy,\tand\tchildren and\tdemocracy\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\teducation and\tequality\t20,\t103\u20137,\t124\u20135;\tsee\talso\tdemocracy,\tand\tequality\tof\topportunity\tfor\tinfluence higher\t48,\t124\u20135 and\tliberty\t62,\t66\u20137,\t83\u20134 as\tpositional\tgood\t124\u20137 private\tvs.\tstate-funded\t8,\t35\u20136,\t104,\t122,\t126\u20137 effort\tsee\tdesert egalitarian\tplateau\t97\u2013102,\t140 egoism\tsee\tindividualism entitlement\tsee\tjustice,\tas\tentitlement envy and\tequality\t118 politics\tof\t95,\t118 epistemic,\tdefined\t196 equality before\tthe\tlaw\t99\u2013101 of\tcitizenship\t99\u2013101;\tsee\talso\tdemocracy,\tand\tequality\tof\topportunity\tfor\tinfluence and\tclass\t104 complex\t101 as\tcontroversial\t95\u20137,\t107,\t140 and\tdemocracy\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\tequality distribution\tvs.\trespect\t97\u20139,\t140 and\teconomic\tproductivity\t96,\t119\u201320,\t134\u20135;\tsee\talso\tdifference\tprinciple and\tgender\t109\u201315 and\thealth\t121\u20132,\t140 of\tinfluence\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\tequality\tof\topportunity\tfor\tinfluence","and\tjustice\t35\u20136;\tsee\talso\tdifference\tprinciple and\tliberty\tsee\tcitizens,\tas\tfree\tand\tequal;Wilt\tChamberlain\texample and\tluck\tsee\tluck,\tand\tnatural\tendowments vs.\tminimum\tthreshold\t99\u2013101,\t131\u20132,\t140 of\toutcome\t107\u20139,\t134 procedural\t118,\t218 relational\t98\u20139,\t110 and\trelativities\t116\u201324;\tsee\talso\tdifference\tprinciple of\trespect\t98\u20139;\tsee\talso\tcitizens,\tas\tfree\tand\tequal;\tdemocracy,\tand\trespect of\tstarting-points\t108 and\twaste\t118 equality\tof\topportunity and\tdemocracy\t197\u20139,\t209\u201313 and\tefficiency\t106\u20137 vs.\tequality\tof\toutcome\t107\u20139 and\tgender\t109\u201315 global\t50 and\tpositional\tgoods\t124\u20137 Rawls\u2019s\tprinciple\tof\t25\u20136 three\tconceptions\tof\t102\u20139 Estlund,\tDavid\t142,\t231,\t237 Etzioni,\tAmitai\t144,\t151,\t185 European\tU nion\t180 expensive\ttastes\t128 expression,\tfreedom\tof\t18,\t173,\t199 external\tpreferences\t201 eye\tlottery\t39 Fabre,\tCecile\t55 fairness\tsee\tjustice,\tas\tfairness\tfamily\t5,\t104\u20135,\t108\u20139,\t110,\t114,\t179\u201380 family\tvalues\t145,\t168 fear,\tas\tobstacle\tto\tfreedom\t85,\t87 feminism\t5,\t29,\t110\u201312 Fichte,\tJohann\tGottlieb\t68 Flikschuh,\tKatrin\t93 Florence\t19 focus\tgroups\t1,\t7,\t234 \u2018forced\tto\tbe\tfree\u2019\t67,\t82,\t84 Frankfurt,\tHarry\t87 fraternity\tsee\tcommunity,\tsense\tof;\tdifference\tprinciple,\tas\texpressing\ta\tsense\tof\tfraternity Frazer,\tElizabeth\t185 free\twill\tsee\tchoice freedom\tsee\tliberty free-rider\tproblem\t150 Freeman,\tSamuel\t56,\t185 French\tRevolution\t143 Freud,\tSigmund\t118 Frost,\tRobert\t155 Galilei,\tGalileo\t5 gambling\t164,\t167 gap\tbetween\trich\tand\tpoor\tsee\tequality,\tand\trelativities Gates,\tBill\t55,\t128 Geuss,\tRaymond\t10 gender\tequality\t109\u201315","gender\tnorms\t114\u201315 general\twill\t63,\t77,\t214 genetics\tsee\tnatural\tendowments globalization\t184 global\tjustice,\tsee\tjustice Gray,\tJohn\t55 Gutmann,\tAmy\t231 happiness\tsee\tutilitarianism Harvard,\tU niversity\tof\t31 Harrison,\tRoss\t231 Hayek,\tFriedrich\tvon\t20\u20132,\t32,\t54\u20135,\t58 health,\taffected\tby\tinequality\tsee\tequality,\tand\thealth health\tcare\t36,\t62,\t78,\t126\u20137 Hegel,\tGeorg\tWilhelm\tFriedrich\t68 Held,\tDavid\t231 heteronomy\tsee\tautonomy hierarchy\tsee\tequality,\tof\trespect higher\tself\tsee\tself,\tdivided Hitler,\tAdolf\t58 Hobbes,Thomas\t4\u20135,\t9,\t29,\t69 Hohfeld,Wesley\t152 House\tof\tCommons\t187,\t205 House\tof\tLords\t197 humanity,\tconcern\tand\trespect\tfor\t14 hypothetical\tcontract\t23,\t27,\t29\u201330 see\talso\tsocial\tcontract\ttheory idealism\t68 ideal\tand\tnon-ideal\ttheory\t7\u20139 identity as\tcitizen\t164,\t177,\t184 national\t53,\t180\u20134 ideology,\tbourgeois\t80\u20131 see\talso\tpolitical\tideologies idleness\tsee\tleisure incentives\tsee\tdifference\tprinciple incommensurability\tsee\tconceptions\tof\tthe\tgood,\tincommensurability\tof;\tvalues,\tincommensurability\tof individualism vs.\tcommunity\t144,\t146\u20138,\t160\u20131,\t177,\t183\u20134 vs.\tself-interest\t29,\t148\u201350,\t161\u20133;\tsee\talso\tcommunity,\tsense\tof inequality\tsee\tequality inheritance\ttax\t95 institutional\tconception\tof\tdesert\tsee\tdesert,\tas\tlegitimate\texpectations intention\tand\tresponsibility\t21\u20132 invisible\thand\t21 Islam\t68,\t173\u20134 jealousy\tsee\tenvy Jury\tTheorem\tsee\tCondorcet\u2019s\tJury\tTheorem justice and\tcharity\t14\u201315 definitions\tof\t11 and\tdemocracy\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\tjustice as\tdesert\t40\u20138,\t134,\t138","and\tduties\t13\u201316 as\tentitl ement\t31\u201340,\t58,\t75\u20136,\t131;\tsee\talso\tN ozick,\tRobert as\tfairness\t22\u201331,\t48,\t134;\tsee\talso\tRawls,\tJohn as\tthe\tfirst\tvirtue\tof\tsocial\tinstitutions\t12,\t14,\t16,\t19 global\tvs.\tnational\t48\u201354,\t178\u201382 global\tvs.\tsocial\t48\u201354,\t178\u20132 historical\tvs.\tend-state\tprinciplesof\t36 and\tmarket\toutcomes\t20\u20132,\t44\u20135,73\u20136;\tsee\talso\tredistributive\ttaxation patterned\tvs.\tunpatterned\tprinciples\tof\t37\u20138 and\tprizes\t45 Rawls\u2019s\tprinciples\tof\t25\u20136 retributive\t11 Kant,\tImmanuel\t4,\t36\u20137,\t67\u20139,\t82,\t86 Kelly,\tPaul\t185 Kennedy,Ted\t168 Kramer\tMatthew,\t93 Kukathas,\tChandran\t55 Kymlicka,Will\t9,\t97,\t142,\t175,\t185 Labour,\tN ew\tsee\tN ew\tLabour\tl egal \taid\t99\u2013100 Leftwich,\tAdrian\t10 legitimacy,\tpolitical,\tvs.\tcorrectness191\u20132,\t208\u201311 legitimate\texpectations\tsee\tdesert,\tas\tlegitimate\texpectations leisure\t29,\t109,\t190,\t197 Leopold,\tDavid\t10 Lessing,\tDoris\txii,\t45 liberalism vs.\tcommunitarianism\t146\u201369 defined\t146\u20138,\t170\u20131 and\tdemocracy\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\tliberalism freedom\tand\tequality\tin\tsee\tcitizens,\tas\tfree\tand\tequal and\tindividualism\tsee\tindividualism as\tmoral\tdoctrine\t149\u201350 political\tsee\tconceptions\tof\tthe\tgood,\tcomprehensive\tvs.\tpolitical;\tself,\tunencumbered right\tvs.\tleft\t31\u20132 as\ta\ttheory\tof\tcommunity\t176\u201382 universal\tvs.\tculture-specific\t144,\t173\u20134,\t176\u201382;\tsee\talso\tvalues,\tshared libertarianism\tsee\tjustice,\tas\tentitlement Liberty\t(organization)\t154 liberty as\tabsence\tof\tinternal\tconstraints\t69,84,\t85\u20138 as\tautonomy\t65\u20139,\t70\u20131,\t80\u201391,160\u20131,\t176\u20139,\t212\u201316 as\tbeyond\tpolitics\t69\u201373 as\tdistinct\tfrom\tother\tvalues\t62\u20133,77\u20138,\t92 as\tdoing\twhat\tone\twants\t65\u20139 effective\t61\u20135,\t69,\t78\u201380,\t83\u20134,99 and\tequality\tsee\tcitizens,\tas\tfree\tand\tequal;Wilt\tChamberlain\texample formal\t61\u20135,\t69,\t80,\t99,\t175 freedom\tof\texpression\tsee\texpression,\tfreedom\tof freedom\tfrom\tvs.\tfreedom\tto\t58\u201360,64 and\tgroups\t60,\t68 and\tlaws\t70\u20133 and\tmarkets\t61\u20132,\t73\u201382,\t92\u20133 and\tmoney\t61\u20135,\t72\u201382;\tsee\talso\tWilt\tChamberlain\texample","moralized\tconception\tof\t75\u20136 negative\tix,\t58\u201373,\t81\u20132,\t85 as\tnon-domination\t71\u20132 as\tnon-interference\t62\u201374 and\toptions\t66,\t83\u20134 and\tpatterns\tsee\tWilt\tChamberlain\texample as\tpolitical\tparticipation\t69\u201373, 212\u201316 positive\tix,\t57\u201370,\t82\u201393 priority\tof\t27 as\trationality\t59,\t77,\t81\u20132,\t86\u201393;\tsee\talso\tself,\tdivided and\tredistributive\ttaxation\tsee\tliberty\tand\tmoney as\tself-realization\t80\u20131,\t84,\t216\u201317 as\ttriadic\trelation\tsee\tMacCallum,\tGerald Lime,\tHarry\t19 Lincoln,\tAbraham\t189 Locke,\tJohn\t4,\t9,\t29,\t33,\t68,\t74\u20135,\t77,91 lottery and\tdemocracy\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\tlottery eye\tsee\teye\tlottery N ational \tsee\tN ational \tLottery natural\tsee\tluck,\tand\tnatural\tendowments lower\tself\tsee\tself,\tdivided luck and\tdesert\t41\u20135 and\tnatural\tendowments\t31,\t35,38\u201340,\t106 see\talso\tself-ownership MacCallum,\tGerald\t59\u201360,\t62,\t65,\t69,71,\t74,\t92 MacIntyre,\tAlasdair\t144\u20135,\t157 Mandle,\tJon\t56 manna\tfrom\theaven\tsee\tproperty,\tinitial\tacquisition\tof market free\tvs.\tplanned\teconomy\t21,\t147 and\tliberty\tsee\tliberty,\tand\tmarkets\toutcomes defence\tof\t40\u20131,\t47,\t147 and\tjustice\tsee\tjustice,\tand\tmarket\toutcomes signalling\tfunction\tof\t135 Marshall,\tGordon\t56 Mart\u00ed,\tJos\u00e9\tLuis\t94 Marx,\tKarl\t4,\t9,\t68,\t80,\t93 maximin\t26\u20137,\t120,\t123,\t127,\t133\u20134,138 see\talso\tdifference\tprinciple McKinnon,\tCatriona\t10 McLeod,\tOwen,\t56 means,\ttreating\tpeople\tas\t36 merit\tsee\tjustice,\tas\tdesert\tmeritocracy\t106 meta-ethics\t158 Mill,\tJohn\tStuart\tx,\t4,\t9,\t91,\t94,205 Miller,\tDavid\t10,\t56,\t93,\t186 minimal\tstate\tsee\tstate,\tminimal miserable\tbottomless\tpit\t128 money\tsee\tequality;\tliberty,\tand\tmoney;\tproperty;\tredistributive\ttaxation monism\t88\u20139 see\talso\tvalues,\tincommensurability\tof","moral\tarbitrariness\tsee\tluck,\tand\tnatural\tendowments moral\tphilosophy\t5\u20136,\t158 Mr\tFoolish\tand\tMs\tWise\t205\u20138 Mulhall,\tStephen\t55,\t185 multiculturalism\t55,\t174\u20136,\t185\u20136 murder\t16,\t54,\t71,\t152,\t179 N agel ,Thomas\t142 nanny\tstate\t95 N ational \tHeal th\tService\tsee\theal th\tcare national\tidentity\tsee\tidentity,\tnational;\tcommunity,\tsense\tof N ational \tLottery\t20 national\tservice\t182 nationality\t49\u201353,\t176\u201382 N ative\tAmericans\t34,\t175 natural\tendowments as\tcommon\tassets\t39 ignorance\tof\tsee\tveil\tof\tignorance as\tmorally\tarbitrary\tsee\tluck,\tand\tnatural\tendowments N azism\t57,\t68 negative\tliberty\tsee\tliberty,\tnegative negligence\t22 neo- l iberal ism\tsee\tN ew\tRight neutrality of\taim\tor\tjustification\tvs.\tneutrality\tof\teffect\t172 of\tthe\tstate\tsee\tstate,\tneutrality;\tstate,\tperfectionism N ew\tLabour\tix see\talso\tBlair,Tony;\tsocial\texclusion\tand\tinclusion N ew\tRight\t20,\t30,\t147\u20138 N ewton,\tIsaac\t5 N ietzsche,\tFriedrich\t19 nightwatchman\tstate\tsee\tstate,\tminimal N obel \tP rize\tfor\tl iterature\t45 N ozick,\tRobert\t14\u201315,\t31\u201342,\t53\u20134,56,\t58,\t62,\t75,\t97,\t106,\t117,\t134,150\u20131 Okin,\tSusan\tMoller\t142 oppression\t98 see\talso\tdiscrimination original\tposition\t23\u201331,\t38,\t54,\t133,146\u20137,\t157,\t159,\t164,\t166 Otsuka,\tMichael\t94 ownership of\tothers\tsee\tslavery of\tproperty\tsee\tproperty of\tthe\tself\tsee\tself-ownership Oxford,\tU niversity\tof\tix,\t20,\t57 Parekh,\tBhikhu\t185 parenting\tsee\tautonomy,\tand\tchildren;\teducation;\tfamily parks,\tpublic\tfunding\tof\t164,\t166 participation,\tpolitical\tsee\tpolitical\tparticipation paternalism\tsee\tstate,\tpaternalism patriarchy\t110 pay\tgap\t110\u201315 perfectionism\tsee\tstate,\tperfectionism persistent\tminorities\t214","personal\tas\tpolitical\t5 Pettit,\tPhilip\t93\u20134 Phillips,\tAnne\t142 Pickett,\tKate\t142 Plato\t4,\t9,\t156\u20137,\t191 pleasure\twizard\t128 pluralism\t163 see\talso\tvalues,\tshared poetry\t28,\t156 Pogge,Thomas\t54\u20136 Pojman,\tLouis\tP.\t56,\t141 policy\tsee\tpolitical\tphilosophy,\tand\tpractical\tpolitics political\tlegitimacy\tsee\tlegitimacy,\tpolitical political\tobligation\t6,\t15,\t178\u20139 political\tparticipation sufficientarian\tvs.\tegalitarian\tconceptions\tof\t198\u20139 see\talso\tdemocracy;\tliberty,\tas\tpolitical\tparticipation political\tparties,\tfunding\tof\t100,\t198\u20139 see\talso\tdemocracy,\tand\tequality\tof\topportunity\tfor\tinfluence political\tphilosophy as\tconceptual\tanalysis\t3\u20134,\t7\u20138,\t10,\t103,\t232\u20133,\t236\u20137 history\tof\t4\u20135,\t9 as\t\u2018intellectual\tmasturbation\u2019\t6 and\tpractical\tpolitics\tix\u2013x,\t1\u20133,\t6\u20139,96\u20137,\t102,\t124\u20135,\t139\u201341,\t144\u20135,148\u20139,\t171,\t233\u20137 principled\tconsiderations\tvs.feasibility\tconstraints\t190 as\tsearch\tfor\ttruth\t4\u20135 as\tsubset\tof\tmoral\tphilosophy\t5\u20136 tension\twith\tdemocracy\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\ttension\twith\tpolitical\tphilosophy politicians\tsee\tpolitical\tphilosophy,\tand\tpractical\tpolitics politics,\tdefined\t5\u20136 pornography\t115,\t168\u20139 positional\tgoods\t124\u20137,\t140,\t198 positive\tliberty\tsee\tliberty,\tpositive\tpostmodernism\t4 poverty\t22,\t35,\t54,\t60\u20133,\t100\u20131,\t116,120\u20131,\t218 preferences, intensity\tof\t220 external\tsee\texternal\tpreferences priority\tto\tthe\tworse\toff\t129\u201331 see\talso\tdifference\tprinciple procedure\tsee\tdemocracy,\tinstrumental\tvs.\tintrinsic\tvalue\tof;\tdemocracy,\tprocedural\tvs.\toutcome-based conceptions\tof primary\tgoods\t24,\t28\u20139,\t120 private\tsphere,\tand\tliberty\tsee\tdemocracy,\tscope\tof;\tliberty,\tas\tpolitical\tparticipation;\tpublic\/\tprivate\tdistinction prizes\t45 property initial\tacquisition\tof\t33\u20134 and\tliberty\tsee\tliberty\tand\tmarkets rectification\tof\tunjust\tholdings\tof\t33\u20135;\tsee\talso\tredistributive\ttaxation right\tto\t31,\t33\u20134,\t74\u20135,\t80\u20131,97 voluntary\ttransfers\tof\t33\u20136,35\u201340 property\trights,\tfull\tand\tabsolute38 public\tgoods,\tdefined\t150 public\/private\tdistinction199\u2013200 see\talso\tdemocracy,\tscope\tof","Quebec\t175 Queen\tElizabeth\tII\t74\u20136,\t81\u20132 racism\tsee\tdiscrimination rational\tself\tsee\tliberty\tas\trationality;\tself,\tdivided Rawls,\tJohn\t7,\t12,\t14,\t19,\t22\u201332,\t34,38\u201344,\t49,\t53\u20137,\t73,\t91,\t106,\t120,123,\t130,\t133\u20134,\t136,\t139, 143\u20137,151,\t157,\t159,\t163\u20136,\t170\u20134,\t185,199 Raz,\tJoseph\t129\u201330,\t141,\t152\u20134,\t167,170,\t185 real\tinterests\tsee\tself,\tdivided realism\t8 rectification\tsee\tproperty,\trectification\tof\tunjust\tholdings\tof redistributive\ttaxation and\tcommunity\t171,\t177,\t183 as\tconsistent\twith\tliberalism\t150\u20131,177 and\tdemocracy\tsee\tdemocracy,and\tequality\tof\topportunity\tfor\tinfluence and\tequality\t95\u20136,\t116,\t136 and\tequality\tof\topportunity\t104,108\u20139 and\tliberty\t73\u201382 objections\tto\t21,\t31\u20133,\t36\u20137,\t150 vs.\tredistribution\tof\tbody\tparts39 and\tutilitarianism\t127\u20139 referenda,\tas\tforms\tof\tdirect\tdemocracy\t193\u20134,\t221 Rehg,William\t231 relationships, duties\tof\t51\u20133 relativism\tsee\tvalues,\trelativity\tof religion\t18,\t25,\t59,\t79,\t98,\t103,\t153,173\u20135,\t184 see\talso\tautonomy,\tand\tchildren;\tCatholicism;\tChristianity;\tIslam,\tmulticulturalism Renaissance\t19 republicanism\t70\u20133,\t93\u20134 see\talso\tliberty,\tas\tpolitical\tparticipation respect\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\trespect;\tequality,\tof\tcitizenship;\tequality,\tof\trespect responsibilities\tsee\trights,\tand\tresponsibilities right\tvs.\tgood\t165\u20136,\t172 Right,\tN ew\tsee\tN ew\tRight rights defined\t152 and\tdemocracy\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\trights and\tduties\t152\u20134 and\tjustice\t14\u20135,\t18 to\tproperty\tsee\tproperty\trights and\tresponsibilities\t144,\t151\u20135 Rousseau,\tJean-Jacques\t4\u20135,\t9,\t29,\t67\u20138,\t70\u20131,\t94,\t212,\t214,\t223,\t226 Rushdie,\tSalman\t173 Sandel,\tMichael\t56,\t144\u20135 Satz,\tDebra\t142 scepticism\t4,\t155,\t190,\t209 Scheffler,\tSamuel\t141 chool\tchoice\t9\u201310 Second\tWorld\tWar\t182,\t203 seat\tbelts\t77,\t92 self divided\t67\u20139,\t77,\t80\u20131,\t83\u20135 unencumbered\t158\u201361 self-interest\tsee\tindividualism","self-ownership\t31\u20133,\t38\u201340,\t54,\t97,\t106,\t134,\t136 self-realization\tsee\tliberty,\tas\tself-realization self-respect\t111\u201314,\t122 see\talso\tprimary\tgoods Sen,\tAmartya\t10 separateness\tof\tpersons\t32\u20133,\t37,\t39 sexism\tsee\tdiscrimination sexuality\t18,\t145,\t168,\t200 Shakespeare,William\t125 shared\tunderstandings\tsee\tvalues,\tshared sibling\trivalry\t118 Skinner,\tQuentin\t73,\t94 slavery, compared\twith\tredistributive\ttaxation\tsee\tredistributive\ttaxation,\tobjections\tto selling\tchildren\tinto\t38 Smith,\tAdam\t21 social\tchoice\ttheory\tsee\tdemocracy,\tsocial\tchoice\tapproach\tto social\tcontract\ttheory\t23,\t27,\t29\u201332,67,\t71 social\texclusion\tand\tinclusion\t116 social\tjustice\tsee\tjustice social\tmatrix\tsee\tcommunity socialism,\tstate\t28,\t134 socialization\t42\u20133,\t87,\t113\u201315,\t159\u201361 see\talso\tluck,\tand\tnatural\tendowments society,\tas\ta\tfair\tscheme\tof\tcooperation\t24,\t30,\t51 solidarity\tsee\tcommunity,\tsense\tof spheres\tof\tjustice\tsee\tWalzer,\tMichael stability\tsee\tdemocracy,\tand\tstability stakeholder\tsociety\t144 Stalin,\tJosef\t58 state authority\tof\t6,\t15,\t29,\t173,\t213\u20134 as\tcoercive\tapparatus\t6,\t15\u201316,\t163,\t173,\t210,\t215 enabling\t62,\t78,\t83 minimal\t35,\t56,\t150\u20131,\t169 neutrality\t25,\t134,\t164\u20139;\tsee\talso\tstate,\tperfectionism paternalism\t77\u20138,\t85\u20136,\t89 perfectionism\t70,\t167\u201370,\t185;\tsee\talso\tstate,\tneutrality state\tof\tnature\t29,\t70 Stears,\tMarc\t10 Steiner,\tHillel\t93 strong\tevaluation\t87\u20138 subjectivism and\tliberalism\t155\u20138 and\tdemocracy\t208\u201311 see\talso\tvalues,\trelativity\tof substantive\tmoral\tphilosophy\tsee\tmoral\tphilosophy sufficiency\tsee\tequality\tvs.\tminimum\tthreshold Supreme\tCourt,\tAmerican\t160,\t199 surgeons,\tand\tfreedom\tof\toccupational\tchoice\t40 Surowiecki,\tJames\t231 Swift,\tAdam\t10,\t55,\t185 Switzerland\t19 talents\tsee\tluck,\tand\tnatural\tendowments","Taliban\t68 tax,\tinheritance\t95 taxation,\tredistributive\tsee\tredistributive\ttaxation Taylor,\tCharles\t79,\t85,\t87,\t144\u20135 teledemocracy\t194\u20135,\t202\u20134,\t216,219\u201320 Thatcher,\tMargaret\t20 thin\tmorality\t150,\t165,\t170,\t172 think\ttanks\t6\u20137,\t32 Third\tMan,The\t(film)\t19 Third\tWay\t144 Thompson,\tDennis\t231 Tocqueville,\tAlexis\tde\t4,\t19\u201320,\t205 Totalitaria\t61\u20134 totalitarianism\t58,\t61,\t82\u20133,\t85,\t88\u20139 traffic\tlights,\tas\tconstraints\ton\tfreedom\t79 treatment\tas\tequals\tsee\tequality,\tof\trespect trickle\tdown\teffect\t28,\t119\u201320,\t124,127 see\talso\tdifference\tprinciple;\tequality,\tand\teconomic\tproductivity unencumbered\tself\tsee\tself,\tunencumbered unreasonableness\t174 utilitarianism\t32,\t127\u201330,\t156 utopianism\t7\u20139 values of\tdemocracy\tsee\tdemocracy,\tvalues\tof disagreement\ton\t1\u20132,\t13\u201314,16,\t102;\tsee\talso\tconcepts\tvs.\tconceptions;\tpolitical\tphilosophy,\tas\tconceptual analysis incommensurability\tof\t90 relativity\tof\t155\u20138;\tsee\talso\tsubjectivism,\tand\tliberalism shared\t157\u20138,\t161\u20134,\t170,\t173\u20135 Van\tParijs,\tPhilippe\t94 veil\tof\tignorance\t23\u201331,\t38,\t133 voting,\tcompulsory\t73 see\talso\tdemocracy;\tliberty,\tas\tpolitical\tparticipation;\tpolitical\tparticipation Waldron,\tJeremy\t211,\t215,\t231 Walzer,\tMichael\t101\u20132,\t144\u20135,157\u20138 way\tof\tlife\tsee\tconceptions\tof\tthe\tgood welfare\tstate\tsee\teducation;\thealth\tcare;\tredistributive\ttaxation Welles,\tOrson\t19 Westmoreland,\tRobert\t141 White,\tStuart\t10 Wilkinson,\tRichard\t142 Williams,\tAndrew\t55,\t111 Wilt\tChamberlain\texample\t37\u20138,\t40 Wolff,\tJonathan\t9,\t56 Wollheim,\tRichard\t205 World\tTrade\tOrganization\t54 World\tWar\tII\tsee\tSecond\tWorld\tWar Zapatero,\tJos\u00e9\tLuis\tRodr\u00edguez\t94"]
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
