Liberalism, state, and community
- 1 March 1994
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Critical Review
- Vol. 8 (2) , 159-173
- https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819408443332
Abstract
Arguments for and against liberalism are vitiated by failing to distinguish between states (which have millions of citizens) and communities (which have only a few thousand citizens). The state should be liberal or minimal, but the community should not. The state is an alliance of communities for mutual defense and is concerned with matters of defense alone. Two reasons are given for this conclusion, one from Aristotle and one from Hobbes (though Hobbes's argument has to be corrected in two important respects). The community, by contrast, is a moral community and should not be liberal. Two arguments are also given for this conclusion, one from the naturalness of the family and one from the need for moral education. Once state and community have been thus distinguished and described, standard arguments both for and against the liberal state are seen to be correct but misdirected.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Postmodernism vs. PostlibertarianismCritical Review, 1991
- Shopping‐mall liberalism: Rejoinder to NarvesonCritical Review, 1991
- Shopping‐mall liberalism: Reply to LegutkoCritical Review, 1991
- The free market in a republicCritical Review, 1991
- Society as a department storeCritical Review, 1990
- LIBERALISM: POLITICAL SUCCESS, MORAL FAILURE?Journal of Social Philosophy, 1990