Coercion is the very essence of law....that is the entire point of Dworkin's work: how does a liberla society one justify coersion?   Justin Schwartz <jkschw@hotmail.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> > >actually, a lot harder than I think you let on...with >a lot of very different ends and bigger fundamental >disagreements you end up with more and more problems >for which Rorty, Walzer et al have very little on >offer-have you looked at headscarve cases in Bavaria, >France and England which are just the tip of that >iceberg? > Those are bad examples. Head scarves are obviously protected unless there is a safety reason to prohibit them. I am aware that particular cases pose hard questions. That's been my business for years. Nonetheless, there is no alternative toliberalism but illiberalism and coercion, and that's not an acceptable alternative. That's why it's an easy question. I trace my own liberalsim back to Mill rather than Rorty and Walzer. I still don't think you can beat On Liberty, the seco! nd! greatest piece of political philosophy ever written. jks > > > > A liberal state premised on the fact of fundamental > > disagreement about ends, > > and based on the rule of law--is that so hard? > > > > jks > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience >http://launch.yahoo.com _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com </BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do You Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/fc/en/spl">Sign-up for Video Highlights</a> of 2002 FIFA World Cup