Ideal Legislators Do Not Vote Their Interests.

First Of All, Principles Should Be General. That Is, It Must Be Possible To Formulate Them Without Use Of What Would Be Intuitively Recognized As Proper Names, Or Rigged Definite Descriptions.

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.

Any Comprehensive Doctrine, Religious Or Secular, Can Be Introduced Into Any Political Argument At Any Time, But I Argue That People Who Do This Should Also Present What They Believe Are Public Reasons For Their Argument. So Their Opinion Is No Longer Just That Of One Particular Party, But An Opinion That All Members Of A Society Might Reasonably Agree To, Not Necessarily That They Would Agree To. What's Important Is That People Give The Kinds Of Reasons That Can Be Understood And Appraised Apart From Their Particular Comprehensive Doctrines.

There Are Infinitely Many Variations Of The Initial Situation And Therefore No Doubt Indefinitely Many Theorems Of Moral Geometry.

You Might Say That, If Citizens Are Acting For The Right Reasons In A Constitutional Regime, Then Regardless Of Their Comprehensive Doctrines They Want Every Other Citizen To Have Justice. So You Might Say They're All Working Together To Do One Thing, Namely To Make Sure Every Citizen Has Justice. Now That's Not The Only Interest They All Have, But It's The Single Thing They're All Trying To Do. In My Language, They've Striving Toward One Single End, The End Of Justice For All Citizens.