Reply to Lowe

The concept 'community' is underspecified in the political theory literature — it must have a more specific reference than just some collectivity or some network of social relations. But attempts to specify what is specific about the relation of community are unsatisfactory. And references to 'actual physical' communities overlook the symbolic and imagined aspects of community, which furthermore destabilise putative communities as much as they stabilise them. Analysis of social relations and networks, and theories of what patterns of relations are conducive to human flourishing should deploy more precise sociological categories.     

Reply to critics

Abstract

This article provides a response to the contributors of this symposium. Notably, I respond to challenges pertaining to whether my account can: accommodate collective goods and collective choice and the complexities pertaining to intergenerational justice; be reconciled with the insights of relational egalitarianism and non-ideal theory; meet the requirement that it provides political action guidance instead of being practically irrelevant; be grounded in Rawls’ considerations about luck and justice; avoid implausible implications regarding ‘concern monsters’ and offensive preferences.     

Reply to my critics

ABSTRACT

This paper offers an overview of the central argument of my book, Territorial Sovereignty, and replies to four critics.     

Reply to Miller on agendas and sincerity

Contrary to Miller, Farquharson’s agenda trees do omit real parliamentary information. And the assumptions he uses to justify Farquharson’s definition of sincere (or naive) voting justify too little (e.g., he drops maximax) and rule out too much (e.g., non-pre-set agendas and principled sincere voting).