Begby’s response neither offers a clarification of what he meant by the sort of political institutions that he claimed are provided by the idea of human security, nor ventures a word of defense for his unsatisfactory account of political representation. In this rejoinder, I provide textual evidence that shows what Begby is missing when he asserts either that political liberalism applies only to well-ordered societies, or that an overlapping consensus cannot be applied to relatively stable forms of political cooperation. In addition, I advance further considerations in order to dispel any doubts about what is at stake in this debate; to my mind, Begby risks standing for “comprehensive liberalism,” while I emphatically stand for “political liberalism.”
Key words: human security, comprehensive liberalism, political liberalism, liberal peace, John Rawls.
