I'd just like to note that, for once, there is a collective action problem.

Is Rousseau reading Kant? It sure seems like it based on a lot of the stuff here, and the author makes note of several similarities.

One question has been bugging me. I understand, I think, the different ways in which Dagger draws republicanism and liberalism together. I'm even beginning to like much of what he has to say. My question is what one who wishes to defend the distinction between these two concepts would say in answer to him. Is there some value in understanding the theories in opposition (or, at least, not together) or is there some meaning lost with the way he characterizes each?

The first chapter was pretty interesting, and I think I have a better understanding of Rousseau's position (though I'd like to go over general vs practical will in class). It does seem like much of what Rousseau says gets lost in context of our society, though, so I'm glad the next to chapters grounded his argument in our current context.

Part of me got sentimental when reading these chapters--actually, I'm not sure the word is sentimental--but I got a feeling of longing for the kind of society Dagger describes. Society really is compartmentalized now and, in many ways, devoid of real meaning. At the very least, its quite hard to find. We don't have a common purpose in American society that we can all (or most of us) wake up and think we're working towards. I think this has a significant effect on the way we treat each other/our feelings about obligations, which is something Glendon discussed extensively.

I certainly don't long for the consumer model in the same way, but that seems to be where we are. The consumer model does have its advantages--most pressing for me, increased options and the ability to avoid those we don't like--but I think I could sacrifice that for a closer, more tight knit society. One concern I have (and one that came up during the chapter on education) is whether smaller societies tend to have more problems with diversity. Same with smaller schools. My intuition is to say yes, but I didn't read any convincing evidence either way in CH. 8.

Similarly, what would a shift to republican liberalism entail for our largely immigrant country? Would entail increased border control? One issue he raised was that communities need to remain relatively stable; do immigrant populations tend to stay settled for long periods? I guess my biggest obstacle to wholeheartedly endorsing what we've read is diversity. Would society be less (or more?) diverse in a world of republican liberalism?

Could we discuss his position in the last paragraph on 117 where he tries to combine what appears to be virtue theory and autonomy? Does he want it to be like virtue theory except that we think about it instead of it being second nature? Does that conflict with the very nature of virtue theory?