Chandran Kukathas

This chapter uses the life of a Javanese woman at the end of the 19th century to explore the tensions between individual freedom and familial loyalty. In particular, it shows that although Kartini had the freedom to leave her family and shake off cultural expectations about women's role, she was ultimately unwilling to do so. The chapter argues that Kartini's dilemma tells against Okin's own proffered solution to the liberation of women from constricting cultures: state intervention to provide education. Kartini had an education, she had a desire to pursue her own goals, she had the resources to do so, and she had parental approval. What she did not have, The chapter concludes, was the social milieu that would allow her to pursue those ambitions and still enjoy both the approval of the community and a clear conscience.

In his major new work Chandran Kukathas offers, for the first time, a book-length treatment of this controversial and influential theory of minority rights. The author argues that the free society should not be seen as a hierarchy of superior and subordinate authorities but an archipelago of competing and overlapping jurisdictions.The idea of a liberal archipelago is defended as one which supplies us with a better metaphor of the free society than do older notions such as the body politic, or the ship of state. In challenging most of the existing theories of the multicultural society and answering his past critics, Kukathas has produced the book that no one with an interest in multiculturalism can afford to ignore.

This article examines the relationship between moral universalism and cultural difference. It analyses the problem of how to measure the claims of particular cultures against the demands of universal morality and discusses possible ways to resolve the tension between cultural minorities and the intrusion of the morality of Western liberalism. One prominent solution to this problem attempts to resolve it by identifying special rights to be accorded to cultural groups to enable them to hold on to their particular customs and traditions. The best-known and most influential theory here is that developed by Will Kymlicka, who put the case for the protection of cultural minorities in terms that were consistent with the universalist commitments of a liberal political outlook.

Such is the rhetorical appeal of the idea of liberty that a variety of political philosophies claim to honour it. Republicans and Marxists, no less than libertarians and liberals, maintain that they and they alone are the true defenders of freedom. The literature of contemporary political theory is thus replete with rival analyses of the meaning of liberty, and disputes about its measurement, distribution and institutional requirements. Our aim here is to gain some understanding of the meaning and the conditions of liberty by working through the thicket of contemporary argument, though we may have to rest content with a better knowledge of the terrain.

Abstract:Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose defenders have set its foundations in the principle of self-ownership. But self-ownership supplies an uncertain basis for such a theory as it is prone to a number of serious difficulties, some of which have been addressed by libertarians but none of which can ultimately be overcome. For libertarianism to be a plausible way of looking at the world, it must look elsewhere for its basic principles. In particular, it needs to rethink the way it understands property and its foundations.

This contribution argues that, despite its undeniable importance, the topic of justice has become an oversold theoretical and normative commodity. Theories of justice abound covering what seems to be nearly every aspect of human existence. Without criticizing the aim of improving these disparate aspects of human existence, a problem arises insofar as justice as a concept is overburdened; rather than resolving the problems it seeks to better, its conceptual proliferation seems to do little to improve actual human existence. The essay’s main contention is that if justice is seen a la Rawls as the keystone of moral and political thinking, and given its primacy among the virtues, any injustice found within our social institutions will not be tolerated. The result is that matters very basic to our lives, such as choosing whether to send one’s child to a private or public school, can be seen as a matter of justice or injustice, when, in fact, it is not. Hence, our conception of justice is sick and it needs a cure.

In the history of modern liberal thought, the work of F.A. Hayek stands out as among the most significant contributions since that of J.S. Mill. In this book, Kukathas critically examines the nature and coherence of Hayek's defense of liberal principles, attempting both to identify its weaknesses and to show why it makes an important contribution to contemporary political theory. Kukathas argues that Hayek's defense of liberalism is unsuccessful because it rests on presuppositions which are philosophically incompatible. In his view, the unresolved dilemma of Hayek's political philosophy is how to mount a systematic defense of liberalism if one emphasizes the limited capacity of human reason. Hayek's social philosophy, he argues, offers a significant theory of the nature of social processes, and is therefore an important account of how this must constrain our choice of political principles.

A number of theorists have touted the merits of the contextual approach to political theory, arguing that a close examination of real-world cases is more likely to yield both theoretical insight and practical solutions to pressing problems. This is particularly evident, it is argued, in the field of multiculturalism in political theory. The present paper offers some skeptical reflections on this view, arguing the merits of a view of political theory which sees the contextual approach as less distinctive than its proponents imagine, and less useful than many would suggest. It maintains that there are serious limits to what political theorists can achieve, even if political theory is not without its uses if we value social criticism.

The libertarian first principle—a belief in individual freedom—can lead to two different and not necessarily acceptable societies from the standpoint of liberty. One is the “Union of Liberty,” in which communities, associations, and intermediate bodies are held to rigorous standards of voluntariness . In the other, the “Federation of Liberty,” they are not .While in any free society individuals may voluntarily join together and waive some of their rights , hard questions arise when nonconsenting children are born into restrictive environments that their parents may have voluntarily created. An adult who gives up all of his or her property to a communal religious body upon conversion has made a voluntary choice, but what about the child born into that religious community later on? Thus, the Federation of Liberty can, in theory, turn out to contain no communities that actually value or respect liberty; and even slavery might have a lawful place within it. The Union of Liberty, on the other hand, can, in principle turn out to be society ruled by a strong authority with little respect for dissenting moral traditions, including some self-styled libertarian moral traditions.Libertarians face a stark choice between these “two constructions of libertarianism”; there is no third way, theoretically speaking. Libertarians must choose one of them. Given the necessity to choose one of these constructions, the Federation of Liberty is arguably preferable to the Union of Liberty