Whatever Arises From A Just Situation By

Justice In Holdings Is Historical; It Depends Upon What Actually Has Happened. We Shall Return To This Point Later.

Philosophical Argument, Trying To Get Someone To Believe Something Whether He Wants To Believe It Or Not, Is Not, I Have Held, A Nice Way To Behave Towards Someone; Also It Does Not Fit The Original Motivation For Studying Or Entering Philosophy. That Motivation Is Puzzlement, Curiousity, A Desire To Understand, Not A Desire To Produce Uniformity Of Belief. Most People Do Not Want To Become Thought-police. The Philosophical Goal Of Explanation Rather Than Proof Not Only Is Morally Better, It Is More In Accord With One's Philosophical Motivation.

I Think Philosophers Can Do Things Akin To Theoretical Scientists, In That, Having Read About Empirical Data, They Too Can Think Of What Hypotheses And Theories Might Account For That Data. So There's A Continuity Between Philosophy And Science In That Way.

Our Main Conclusions About The State Are That A Minimal State, Limited, To The Narrow Functions Of Protection Against Force, Theft, Fraud, Enforcement Of Contracts, And So On, Is Justified, But Any More Extensive State Will Violate Persons' Rights Not To Be Forced To Do Certain Things, And Is Unjustified; And That The Minimal State Is Inspiring As Well As Right.

Only The Refusal To Listen Guarantees One Against Being Ensnared By The Truth.