The idea of public reason has to do with how questions should be decided, but it doesn't tell you what are the good reasons or correct decisions.

Liberal constitutional democracy is supposed to ensure that each citizen is free and equal and protected by basic rights and liberties.

The hazards of the generalized prisoner's dilemma are removed by the match between the right and the good.

If A were not allowed his better position, B would be even worse off than he is.

People can make arguments from the Bible if they want to. But I want them to see that they should also give arguments that all reasonable citizens might agree to.

Clearly when the liberties are left unrestricted they collide with one another.

The intolerant can be viewed as free-riders, as persons who seek the advantages of just institutions while not doing their share to uphold them.