Part One: Egalitarian-Liberalism
Main Idea: What is Egalitarian-Liberalism?
Egalitarian-liberalism is a strand of political theory that argues for a combination of liberty and equality
as essential values in a just society. It is concerned with distributive justice, meaning how society’s
benefits (like income, rights, or opportunities) and burdens (like duties or costs) should be fairly
distributed among citizens.
This school of thought holds that liberty and equality are not mutually exclusive but are both crucial to a
fair society. Different thinkers within this tradition offer competing interpretations of how equality
should be understood and achieved, especially when it comes to personal responsibility, social
cooperation, and economic disparity.
Key Thinkers and Concepts:
1. Justice as Fairness – John Rawls
Rawls proposes that justice should be seen as "fairness", determined by what rational individuals
would choose behind a “veil of ignorance” (not knowing their own future position in society).
He introduces two principles of justice:
Equal basic liberties for all.
Social and economic inequalities are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged (the
difference principle) and if positions are open to all under fair equality of opportunity.
His theory is deontological, giving priority to rights over utilitarian calculations of the greater good.
2. The Maximin Principle – John C. Harsanyi
Harsanyi critiques Rawls, especially the “maximin” decision rule Rawls uses (maximize the minimum).
He argues that Rawls’s principle leads to irrational decisions because it overemphasizes worst-case
scenarios.
Harsanyi supports a utilitarian approach, believing people behind a veil of ignorance would choose to
maximize expected utility rather than play it too safe.
3. Primary Goods Reconsidered – Richard J. Arneson
Arneson challenges Rawls’s focus on primary goods (like income, rights, and liberties), which are used
to define the “least advantaged”.
He argues that personal responsibility should matter: someone who is poor because of bad choices
(e.g., choosing a low-paying artistic career) should be treated differently from someone who is poor due
to circumstances beyond their control (e.g., disability).
This leads toward “luck egalitarianism”: justice should compensate for bad luck, not for poor choices.
4. Equality of What? – Alex Callinicos
Callinicos reviews various answers to this key question: what exactly should be equal? Welfare?
Resources? Opportunities?
He critiques different egalitarian positions and explores the tensions between equal concern for all
and respect for individual responsibility.
Influenced by Amartya Sen’s famous question “equality of what?”, this section helps compare equality
of welfare vs. equality of resources.
5. A Question for Egalitarians – John Kekes
Kekes challenges egalitarianism altogether, questioning its practical and moral basis.
He points out that some inequalities (like life expectancy between genders) are not unjust or
avoidable, and trying to fix them leads to absurd conclusions.
Kekes warns that egalitarianism may ignore important distinctions and push for impossible or
irrational outcomes.
Summary Conclusion:
Part One of the book presents a rich debate within egalitarian-liberalism:
Rawls sets the foundation with his contractarian view of justice.
Harsanyi and Arneson offer utilitarian and responsibility-based critiques.
Callinicos surveys competing views on the metric of equality.
Kekes questions the coherence of the egalitarian agenda entirely.
Together, these texts help you explore not just whether equality matters, but how and why it should
matter in liberal democracies.
Part Two Libertarianism
Part Two: Libertarianism – Explained and Digested
This section of the text provides a libertarian counterpoint to the egalitarian-liberal theories discussed in
Part One. While egalitarian-liberalism emphasizes redistributive justice, fairness, and the role of the state
in correcting inequalities, libertarianism centers on individual liberty, property rights, and the minimal
state. The key idea is that justice is about respecting voluntary transactions and protecting self-
ownership, not about achieving patterned or egalitarian outcomes.
Main Idea: Libertarianism and the Minimal State
Libertarianism argues for a "night-watchman state" that protects individuals from force, theft, and fraud,
but does not engage in redistributive policies. The central claim is that individuals have inviolable rights,
especially property rights, and that freedom is the highest political value—even at the cost of economic
inequality. The key thinkers in this section challenge the idea that social justice requires redistribution
and propose alternative frameworks based on liberty and consent.
Key Thinkers and Topics
1. The Entitlement Theory of Justice – Robert Nozick
Nozick develops a historical, rights-based theory of justice that emphasizes self-ownership and
voluntary exchange.
His three principles are:
Justice in acquisition (how property is originally acquired),
Justice in transfer (how property is exchanged or gifted),
Justice in rectification (how to deal with past injustices).
If holdings are acquired and transferred justly, the resulting distribution is just, regardless of inequality.
Wilt Chamberlain example: illustrates how free individual choices disrupt any fixed pattern of equality,
and why trying to maintain patterns would require constant interference in liberty.
2. How Liberty Upsets Patterns – Eric Mack
Builds on Nozick's argument to show how liberty inevitably disrupts any distributive pattern (e.g.,
equality, need, merit).
Even if society starts from a just pattern (D1), people’s free actions (like buying tickets to see a popular
player) will create a new distribution (D2) that breaks the pattern.
Therefore, patterns require coercion to maintain, violating liberty.
Mack reframes Nozick’s point as a tension between the initial justice of a distribution and attempts to
continually impose a pattern, which would stifle individual autonomy.
3. On Rectification in Nozick’s Minimal State – Robert E. Litan
Litan explores a major gap in Nozick’s theory: how to correct past injustices (like slavery or conquest).
He argues that Nozick’s minimal state cannot adequately deal with historical wrongs because it
requires a high burden of proof linking current disadvantage to past injustice.
If taken seriously, rectification might lead to egalitarian outcomes, which ironically undermines the
libertarian rejection of redistribution.
4. Justice as Mutual Advantage – David Gauthier
Gauthier rejects Rawls’s idea of justice as fairness and instead bases justice on rational self-interest
and mutual benefit.
Morality and justice are seen as the result of rational agreements among individuals who are roughly
equal in power and ability.
This is a contractarian view, but it excludes those who can’t contribute (like severely disabled persons)
from the moral community, raising major ethical concern.
5. A Critique of Justice as Reciprocity – Allen Buchanan
Buchanan critiques Gauthier’s view for being too exclusive and unjust toward people who cannot
contribute to social cooperation.
He distinguishes between:
Justice as self-interested reciprocity (Gauthier’s view), and
Justice as fair reciprocity or subject-centered justice, which includes the vulnerable.
Buchanan argues that justice must apply to all persons, not just those capable of bargaining or
contributing, aligning more closely with human rights and legal equality.
Summary: Libertarianism vs. Egalitarianism
Libertarians like Nozick and Gauthier emphasize individual rights, self-ownership, and voluntary
transactions.
They reject state-enforced redistribution and argue that freedom trumps equality.
Critics like Litan and Buchanan reveal tensions and blind spots in this theory—especially regarding
historical injustice and the moral status of the vulnerable.
Part Three Communitarianism
Part Three: Communitarianism – Explained and Digested
Main Idea: Communitarianism’s Critique of Liberalism
Communitarianism is a reaction to the liberal emphasis on the autonomous individual and state
neutrality. Communitarians argue that individuals are not unencumbered selves floating free of history,
culture, and social ties. Instead, people are deeply embedded in communities, and identities, values, and
moral understandings arise from those communal contexts.
Communitarian thinkers critique liberalism for being too abstract and universalistic—especially the
liberal idea that justice can be determined without reference to any particular way of life. Instead, they
emphasize that community, culture, and shared meanings are essential to any serious account of justice.
This part includes two major communitarian thinkers—Michael Sandel and Michael Walzer—and one
liberal response from Will Kymlicka.
Key Thinkers and Topics
1. The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self – Michael J. Sandel
Sandel critiques Rawls and other liberals for promoting a vision of society based on the
“unencumbered self”—a person seen as free to choose their values independently of community or
tradition.
He calls the public philosophy that arises from this vision the “procedural republic”—a society where
the state remains neutral between competing visions of the good life.
Sandel argues that this leads to alienation and fragmentation, because people actually derive meaning
from shared histories, values, and attachments.
He uses legal examples (e.g. Roe v. Wade, hate speech rulings) to show how state neutrality is often
impossible and sometimes socially harmful.
2. Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality – Will Kymlicka
Kymlicka responds to communitarians by defending liberal neutrality
He distinguishes two types of neutrality:
Consequential neutrality: the state treats all life plans equally in outcome
Justificatory neutrality: the state does not base laws on any one moral or religious worldview.
Kymlicka argues that liberals defend justificatory neutrality, not the impossible demand of
consequential neutrality.
He agrees with communitarians that culture matters, but warns that invoking tradition or community
can reinforce exclusion and marginalization.
Therefore, liberal neutrality, while imperfect, is more inclusive and protective of minority rights.
3. Complex Equality – Michael Walzer
Walzer rejects the liberal quest for universal principles of justice. Instead, he offers a pluralist theory of
distributive justice based on the particular meanings of goods within communities.
His central idea: justice is culture-dependent. We can’t decide how to distribute healthcare, education,
or political power without considering what those goods mean to the people in that society.
Walzer proposes “complex equality”: society should not let dominance in one sphere (like wealth)
convert into dominance in others (like political power or education).
Example: Being rich shouldn’t automatically mean access to better healthcare or political influence.
Each sphere (economy, politics, education) should have its own rules for distribution, preventing
domination across all of society.
Communitarianism reminds us that people are not isolated decision-makers, but social beings formed by
their communities. While liberalism defends freedom and neutrality, communitarianism warns against
overlooking the communal foundations of justice, identity, and democracy.
Part Four Republicanism
Part Four: Republicanism – Explained and Digested
Main Idea: What is Republicanism?
Republicanism is a political tradition that redefines liberty not as mere non-interference (as in classical
liberalism), but as non-domination. That is, true freedom exists only when individuals are not subject to
arbitrary power, even if that power is not actively interfering with them. This tradition emphasizes civic
virtue, public participation, and the rule of law as essential to maintaining a “free state.”
Republicanism also provides a third path between liberalism and communitarianism. Like liberals,
republicans value freedom and rights, but like communitarians, they believe that freedom depends on
active participation in a political community that can resist domination.
1. Freedom as Antipower – Philip Pettit
Key concept: Freedom as non-domination, distinct from:
Negative liberty (freedom from interference), and
Positive liberty (self-mastery or self-realization).
Pettit argues that even if no one interferes with you, you are still not free if someone could interfere
arbitrarily (e.g., a benevolent dictator or an abusive husband).
To be truly free, one must live in a political and legal system that ensures no one holds unchecked,
arbitrary power over others.
Pettit calls for institutional structures (laws, rights, public accountability) that prevent domination, not
just interference .
2. The Republican Critique of Liberalism – Alan Patten
Patten analyzes Quentin Skinner’s criticisms of liberalism:
Overreliance on invisible-hand mechanisms.
Prioritization of rights over duties.
A weak understanding of law and civic obligation.
Hostility to utilitarian considerations.
A misinterpretation of negative liberty.
Patten concludes that instrumental republicanism (the view that civic virtue is necessary to preserve
liberty) fails to show a strong philosophical contrast with liberalism, though it adds value by emphasizing
citizen engagement and virtue .
3. Cosmopolitan Republicanism – James Bohman
Bohman expands republican ideas to the global level, blending republicanism with cosmopolitanism.
He argues that in an era of globalization, freedom from domination cannot be guaranteed by the
nation-state alone.
As global powers (like international corporations or institutions) affect citizens’ lives, global institutions
must also be subject to democratic control and public justification.
He introduces cosmopolitan republicanism, which seeks freedom through global citizenship and
transnational public deliberation, while preserving republican values of self-governance and non-
domination.
Conclusion
Republicanism renews the classical idea of the “free state”, where freedom is more than being left
alone—it’s about living free from domination. In modern terms, it means building institutions that
ensure equality, accountability, and civic participation. This tradition challenges both liberal neutrality
and communitarian exclusivity, offering a vision of freedom rooted in collective, democratic self-rule.
Part Six Deliberative Democracy
Part Six: Deliberative Democracy – Explained and Digested
Main Idea: What Is Deliberative Democracy?
Deliberative democracy is a model of democratic governance that prioritizes reasoned discussion and
public justification over mere voting or preference aggregation. Unlike traditional liberal or aggregative
models, it views democracy not just as a method for deciding outcomes, but as a discursive process
where citizens and officials justify their positions to one another and reach legitimate decisions through
dialogue.
This approach emerged in response to the limits of distributive justice theories (like those of Rawls or
Nozick), emphasizing that just outcomes must also be the result of fair democratic procedures. It
stresses inclusion, equality, mutual respect, and rational deliberation as core democratic ideals.
1. The Deliberative Model – Iris Marion Young
Young critiques the aggregative model of democracy, where politics is seen as the competition of self-
interested preferences, mostly expressed through voting.
She proposes the deliberative model, in which democratic legitimacy arises from open, inclusive, and
reasoned dialogue among those affected by decisions.
Key Normative Ideals of this model include:
Inclusion – All affected voices must be part of the discussion.
Political equality – All must have equal opportunity to participate.
Reasonableness – Arguments must appeal to shared reasoning, not just self-interest.
Publicity – Deliberations should be open and transparent.
This model transforms participants, helping them understand others' perspectives and potentially
revise their own views through collective reasoning.
2. Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process – Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson
Gutmann and Thompson argue against the idea that deliberative democracy should be purely
procedural (focused only on how decisions are made).
Instead, they insist that substantive principles (like liberty, equality, or basic opportunities) must also
guide deliberation.
Their core principle is reciprocity – decisions must be mutually justifiable to those affected.
They show through real examples (like the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the UK) that
procedural fairness is not enough; public reasoning must be morally grounded.
They advocate for a balance of procedural and substantive principles to ensure laws are not just made
fairly but are fair in contention.
3. Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy – John S. Dryzek
Dryzek tackles a practical challenge: how can deliberative democracy work in large-scale societies?
Classic deliberative theory (like Habermas’s or Cohen’s) assumes legitimacy comes from broad,
inclusive participation, but in real life, only a few actually participate.
Dryzek proposes a more realistic and flexible model: discursive democracy.
Legitimacy comes not from everyone deliberating, but from public discourse being open to diverse
views and responsive to competing narratives.
He introduces the idea of "discursive legitimacy": collective outcomes are legitimate if they reflect
the balance of discourses in the public sphere, even if not everyone participates equally.
Conclusion: Why It Matters
Deliberative democracy emphasizes that how decisions are made is just as important as what decisions
are made. It values inclusive discussion, justification, and mutual respect, moving beyond voting and
numbers to focus on legitimacy through public reasoning.
