Brettschneider seems to be addressing the concerns brought up near the end of seminar last week. If a majority decides to enact a law you disagree with, are you being used as a means (or disrespected as an individual), by being obligated to adhere to it? In a sense, he is arguing for what democracy needs so that it does not become tyrannical. He believes that by incorporating his three core values, we avoid the issues of solely substantive or solely procedural theories, and are able to examine the justification and limits of legitimate coercion in political society (22). He says, "The idea that citizens should be given reasons for coercion, which I see as implicit in the institution of the rule of law, forms the basis of the core value of reciprocity. Treating citizens as sovereign requires not only that they enjoy procedural rights of participation in lawmaking, but also that the government's actions can be reasonably justified to them, especially when the citizens in question are those most affected by the coercion" (43). His method is "bottom-up and top down," accounting for "rule of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Do you think that the three values, taken together, are strong enough to guard against unjust coercion by the state? Brettschneider believes that by using reciprocity to "appeal to citizens' common values of autonomy and equality to discern the limits of coercion," we will have an ideal democracy in which all outcomes can be accepted. However, I wonder, how can you guarantee that all reasonable persons will accept coercion, even under these circumstances? If a person "discerns" that the coercion is unjust, but all three values were in place, what is to be done? If Brettschneider is arguing that this situation is inherently impossible under his theory, then I may need more convincing. I struggle to see how, without imposing conceptions of justice, we will arrive at this happy medium.