1. If a majority persistently outvotes a minority group in some regime, can
this regime count as a democracy?
2. ‘One person, one vote.’ Is this necessary or sufficient for a decisionmaking procedure to count as democratic?
3. Should a democratic representative legislate on the basis of their own
conscience?
4. Did Rawls simply engineer the Original Position to deliver precisely those
principles he already preferred? Would it be so bad if he had?
5. EITHER: (a) Are free exchanges justice-preserving?
OR: (b) Does the idea that we own the fruits of our labour support or
conflict with egalitarianism?
6. Is it unjust that you are better off than people in the past?
7. Equality of what?
8. How, if at all, can an agent be rendered unfree by their own desires?
9. EITHER: (a) ‘There is no liberty without the state.’ Discuss.
OR: (b) ‘There is no liberty without the liberty to resist the state.’ Discuss.
10. EITHER: (a) ‘To be subject to another agent’s will is to be unfree. All
employees are subject to their employer’s will. So all employees are
unfree.’ Discuss.
OR: (b) ‘When it comes to understanding political liberty, either Hobbes
already said it, or it isn’t worth saying.’ What do you say?