Abstract

If communitarian political philosophers such as Michael Sandel are right about the importance of genuine community commitment, then it is the liberal minimal state, rather than the more expansive state implied both by communitarianism and by Rawlsian welfare liberalism, that should be preferred. It is contended that Sandel's antiliberal arguments, while inadequate as a criticism of Rawls's particular formulation of liberalism, nonetheless contain an important challenge to rights‐based political theories generally. However, by considering the various senses in which individual rights can be said to draw lines between persons, it is shown how the classical liberal might meet Sandel's challenge.