Political Considerations in a Liberal Pluralist State

Abstract

Writers have devoted too little attention to the question of the appropriate limits of the state. There seems to be a tacit assumption that wise, well-meaning statesmen will translate philosophers’ insights into good policy. I suggest that it is more likely to find that government leaders in large nations are narcissistic, power-obsessed, and corrupt. The necessity for protecting children’s needs must balanced against the need to maintain the integrity of private spaces against the sorts of governments that are likely to wield authority. I propose seven principles that undergird this balance, and that will be reified in the State Intervention Test in the next chapter. These principles are family primacy, pluralism, political realism, negotiation, limitation of government scope, diffusion of government power, and sufficientarianism. Essentially, I seek a political process with constitutional guarantees of liberty. My vision derives from a contemporary movement in political theory known as political realism. Needs must ultimately be determined politically, and are reified through a political process as guarantees of minimum fulfillment of important interests. The idea that the state should provide such a floor is called sufficientarianism. The levels of sufficiency are established through a modus vivendi. There is no non-controversial principled justification, so I use sentiment to justify my political realist solution. First, it is based on compassion, and possibly solidarity. Second, it encompasses the notion of self-insurance; any of us may fall below a sufficient level without the state providing a floor. Finally, the existence of a social net promotes the legitimacy of societal institutions, including the state, thus promoting social harmony and order.