Reciprocity and Subjectivity

One of Brettschneider's core values is reciprocity, which "is the notion that policies governing citizens' treatment must be defensible by appeal to arguments that reasonable citizens can accept" (25). Brettschneider says reciprocity can be understood by finding a standard dictated by "an inquiry into what types of coercion are justifiable to citizens in virtue of their sovereign status" (35). He proposes Rawls's principle of reciprocity as an example of how to understand reasonable interaction and coercion. Reasonable treatment, or reciprocity, "can be incorporated into the value theory as a procedure-independent standard for thinking about the rights of addressees" (35). However, Brettschneider also mentions that his value theory of democracy is superior to other theories because it does not require one specific conception of the good (19). He says that "In any society, citizens have an abundance of reasonable beliefs about what truth is, or indeed about whether there is such a thing as truth. Conceptions of justice are similarly wide-ranging. . . The ideal of democracy, I argue, is self-rule, and subordinating democratic institutions to one particular comprehensive view would impose external rule on citizens who, reasonably, did not share that view" (19). Though Brettschneider makes the case that his theory requires no specific conception of what the good is, and only requires that all citizens are given the status of self-rulers and have their equality, political autonomy, and reciprocity respected, won't people have conflicting ideas of what reciprocity will look like in laws? How does Brettschneider propose to deal with the problem that will arise when certain individuals (self-rulers) think that the imposition of a law is reasonable, and they accept its justification, but another group of individuals (also self-rulers) do not find a law reasonable, and hold that they cannot reasonably accept its justification and imposition? Or does Brettschneider think there is an objective standard of "reasonableness" that all people should accept, even if they don't?