Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 12
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Billingham, Paul 2016. Convergence Justifications Within Political Liberalism: A Defence. Res Publica, Vol. 22, Issue. 2, p. 135.


    Wendt, Fabian 2016. Compromise, Peace and Public Justification.


    Wendt, Fabian 2016. Compromise, Peace and Public Justification.


    Wendt, Fabian 2016. Compromise, Peace and Public Justification.


    Boettcher, James W. 2015. Against the Asymmetric Convergence Model of Public Justification. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 18, Issue. 1, p. 191.


    Van Schoelandt, Chad 2015. Justification, coercion, and the place of public reason. Philosophical Studies, Vol. 172, Issue. 4, p. 1031.


    Rossi, Enzo 2014. Legitimacy, Democracy and Public Justification: Rawls’ Political Liberalism Versus Gaus’ Justificatory Liberalism. Res Publica, Vol. 20, Issue. 1, p. 9.


    Beckwith, Francis J. 2013. Justificatory Liberalism and Same-Sex Marriage. Ratio Juris, Vol. 26, Issue. 4, p. 487.


    Brennan, Jason 2013. Is Market Society Intrinsically Repugnant?. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 112, Issue. 2, p. 271.


    Norton, Simon D. 2012. Judicial interpretation of the will of the state: A Hegelian perspective in the context of taxation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 23, Issue. 2, p. 117.


    Tomasi, John 2012. DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY. Social Philosophy and Policy, Vol. 29, Issue. 01, p. 50.


    Vallier, Kevin 2012. Liberalism, Religion And Integrity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 90, Issue. 1, p. 149.


    ×

COERCION, OWNERSHIP, AND THE REDISTRIBUTIVE STATE: JUSTIFICATORY LIBERALISM'S CLASSICAL TILT

  • Gerald Gaus (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0265052509990100
  • Published online: 01 January 2010
Abstract
Abstract

Justificatory liberalism is liberal in an abstract and foundational sense: it respects each as free and equal, and so insists that coercive laws must be justified to all members of the public. In this essay I consider how this fundamental liberal principle relates to disputes within the liberal tradition on “the extent of the state.” It is widely thought today that this core liberal principle of respect requires that the state regulates the distribution of resources or well-being to conform to principles of fairness, that all citizens be assured of employment and health care, that no one be burdened by mere brute bad luck, and that citizens' economic activities must be regulated to insure that they do not endanger the “fair value” of rights to determine political outcomes. I argue in this essay: (1) a large family of liberal views are consistent with the justificatory liberals project, from classical to egalitarian formulations (but not socialist ones); (2) overall, the justificatory project tilts in the direction of classical formulations.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Eric Mack and Gerald Gaus , “Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism: The Liberty Tradition,” in Gerald F. Gaus and Chandran Kukathas , eds., Handbook of Political Theory (London: Sage Publications, 2004), 115–30

Samuel Freeman , “Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 30 (2001): 105–51

Gerald F. Gaus , “On Justifying the Moral Rights of the Moderns: A Case of Old Wine in New Bottles,” Social Philosophy and Policy 24, no. 1 (2007): 84119

Richard Dagger , “Neo-Republicanism and the Civic Economy,” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 5 (2006): 151–73

Stanley Benn , A Theory of Freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 87

Are Property Rights Problematic?The Monist 73 (October, 1990): 483503

Hillel Steiner , “Kant, Property, and the General Will,” in Norman Geras and Robert Walker , eds., The Enlightenment and Modernity (New York: St. Martin's, 2000), 71ff

Property, Rights, and Freedom,” Social Philosophy and Policy 11, no. 2 (1994): 209–40

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Philosophy and Policy
  • ISSN: 0265-0525
  • EISSN: 1471-6437
  • URL: /core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×