Are Cities Illiberal? Municipal Jurisdictions and the Scope of Liberal Neutrality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main characteristics of today’s democratic societies is their pluralism. As a result, liberal political philosophers often claim that the state should remain neutral with respect to different conceptions of the good. Legal and social policies should be acceptable to everyone regardless of their culture, their religion or their comprehensive moral views. One might think that this commitment to neutrality should be especially pronounced in urban centres, with their culturally diverse populations. However, there are a large number of laws and policies adopted at the municipal level that contradict the liberal principle of neutrality. In this paper, I want to suggest that these perfectionistlaws and policies are legitimate at the urban level. Specifically, I will argue that the principle of neutrality applies only indirectly to social institutions within the broader framework of the nation-state. This is clear in the case of voluntary associations, but to a certain extent this rationale applies also to cities. In a liberal regime, private associations are allowed to hold and defend perfectionist views, focused on a particular conception of the good life. One problem is to determine the limits of this perfectionism at the urban level, since cities, unlike private associations, are publicinstitutions. My aim here is therefore to give a liberal justification to a limited form of perfectionism of municipal laws and policies.Une caractéristique centrale des sociétés libérales démocratiques contemporaines est leur pluralisme. Conséquemment, les philosophes politiques libéraux affirment souvent que l’État devrait demeurer neutre face aux différentes conceptions du bien. Les lois et politiques sociales devraient être acceptables aux yeux de tous, peu importe leur culture, leur religion ou leurs valeurs morales. On pourrait croire que ce principe de neutralité devrait s’appliquer à plus fortes raisons dans les centres urbains, caractérisés par une population culturellement très diversifiée. Il existe pourtant un nombre important de règlements et de politiques à l’échelle municipale qui contredisent ce principe libéral. Dans cet article, nous défendrons l’idée selon laquelle ces lois et politiques perfectionnistes, fondées sur des raisons qui font appel à une vision particulière du bien, trouvent une légitimité libérale à l’échelle urbaine. Nous nous appuierons sur l’idée que le principe de neutralité ne s’applique qu’indirectement aux institutions sociales à l’intérieur du cadre plus large de l’État-nation. Cela est clair dans le cas des associations libres, desquelles l’individu peut en principe sortir à tout moment. Sous un régime libéral, nous présumons en effet qu’au contraire de l’État, les associations libres sont en droit d’afficher et de défendre des idéaux perfectionnistes, fondés sur une conception particulière du bien. Un problème est toutefois de déterminer les limites de ce perfectionnisme à l’échelle urbaine, puisque les juridictions municipales, au contraire des associations privées, demeurent des institutions publiques. L’objectif de cet article est donc d’offrir une justification libérale à une forme limitée de perfectionnisme pour les lois et politiques municipales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".