1) Could we rediscuss the persuasiveness of the hypothetical consent position? The last couple of papers have all shown (some of them insistent) signs of skepticism towards it, yet I do feel like it is indeed the most reasonable basis for the justification of the basic structure of society.
2) In connection with question 1, is it really plausible to maintain that liberalism, as presented ,say, in Rawls, is somehow parochial to the West, i.e. not neutral in relevant respects ? The paper from Martha Nussbaum, e.g., was singularly insistent that the values of individualism are by no means peculiarly Western (she used India as an instance of the latter being false)