Abstract
Begby s response neither offers a clarification of what he meant by the sort of political institutions that he claimed are provided by the idea of human security, nor ventures a word of defense for his unsatisfactory account of political representation. In this rejoinder, I provide textual evidence that shows what Begby is missing when he asserts either that political liberalism applies only to well-ordered societies, or that an overlapping consensus cannot be applied to relatively stable forms of political cooperation. In addition, I advance further considerations in order to dispel any doubts about what is at stake in this debate; to my mind, Begby risks standing for comprehensive liberalism , while I emphatically stand for political liberalism .
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 98 - 102 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Public Reason: Journal of Political and Moral Philosophy |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 |
| Externally published | Yes |