(1) Regarding the Schmidtz article, I am a bit confused regarding how any justification argument can be seperated into either emergent or teleological arguments. To me it seems that the division is a arbitrary, in the sense that I can not see any argument that does not require both deontological and consequentialist premises to justify the conclusion. Could you please clarify for me?
(2) If the emergent justification argument relies on an "invisible hand" premise, as outlined in pages 99-100, doesn't the fact that it doesn't require unanimous consent undermine its strength as a justification for government? Perhaps I am a bit confused, but I can see a government being formed through the emergent process which ignores the basic rights of minorities who's claims would be too difficult for the rest to acquiesce to (bottom of page 99).