Sublime

To say that liberalism isn’t neutral in this absolute sense is not a criticism—it is a statement of the obvious. No set of political principles or institutions could be truly neutral in this way. Rawls argued that we should strive not for neutrality of effect—which is impossible—but neutrality of aim or intent.[42] In other words, while any society

As Burke said in describing his early years in Albany, “Murphy delegates to the point of anarchy.”7

La démocratie exige l’esprit de compromis pour faire fonctionner l’équilibre des pouvoirs mais aussi pour éviter la tyrannie de la majorité et préserver les droits de la minorité.

Also, lacking civil liberties and property rights, representative democracy is left with nothing to represent except the will of the mob or—as it’s called these days—“activism.”

This is why, in Cass Sunstein’s words, “societies need dissent.”

The problem here is not with the notion of civility itself, but with a narrow conception of what it entails. For Rawls, the “duty of civility” is not only, or even mainly, about style. It is also about substance: when it comes to politics, we should do our best to ensure that the positions we advocate lie within the boundaries of public reason—in o

Le risque, dans les sociétés d’ordre, est d’oublier les mutations profondes pour ne voir que l’action des souverains et des nobles. Le risque, dans les temps démocratiques, est l’esprit de système qui ignore l’importance des hommes.

When a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may easily be foreseen that sooner or later that qualification will be entirely abolished. There is no more invariable rule in the history of society: the further electoral rights are extended, the greater is the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy inc