Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Scepter of Reason

Public Discussion and Political Radicalism in the Origins of Constitutionalism

  • Book
  • © 2000

Overview

Authors:
  1. Roberto Gargarella

    1. University Torcuato di Tella, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Part of the book series: Law and Philosophy Library (LAPS, volume 48)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Log in via an institution
eBook USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (5 chapters)

  1. Front Matter

    Pages i-xxviii
    Download chapter PDF

  2. Radicalism and Conservatism in England

    • Roberto Gargarella
    Pages 1-19

  3. Radicalism and Populism in the U.S.

    • Roberto Gargarella
    Pages 21-54

  4. The Conservative Reaction. James Madison: Institutional Reforms Against the Power of Factions

    • Roberto Gargarella
    Pages 55-74

  5. The Conservative Reaction II. Defending the New Institutions in the Federal Convention

    • Roberto Gargarella
    Pages 75-93

  6. The Conservative Model of Deliberation

    • Roberto Gargarella
    Pages 95-110

  7. Back Matter

    Pages 111-143
    Download chapter PDF
Back to top

Keywords

About this book

It is not unusual that formal and informal discussions about the political system, its virtues, and its many defects, conclude in a discussion about impartiality. In fact, we all discuss impartiality when we talk about the best way to equally consider all viewpoints. We show our concerns with impartiality when, facing a particular problem, we try to figure out the best solution for all of us, given our conflicting interests. Thus, the quest for impartiality tends to be a common objective for most of us, although we normally disagree on its particular contents. Generally, these formal and informal discussions about impartiality conclude in a dispute between different "epistemic" conceptions. That is to say, simply, that in these situations we begin to disagree about best procedure to defme the more neutral, impartial solution for all of us.! Basically, trying to answer this question we tend to fluctuate between two opposite positions. According to some, the best way to know which is the more impartial solution is to resort to a process of collective reflection: in those situations we have to consider the opinions of all those who are possibly affected.

Authors and Affiliations

  • University Torcuato di Tella, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Roberto Gargarella

Bibliographic Information

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Back to top

Search

Navigation