You've argued that state force cannot create virtue, while admitting that it is sometimes required.
Why is it ever required? Is it to stop men from oppressing other men? Is it to preserve liberty for the innocent parties?
If that is your position, then it seems to me your statement "The anti-liberal society cannot be the virtuous society because it is not free" is a circular argument.
Let me try to demonstrate, if I can.
"Men cannot be free if the state is making them be virtuous. However, the state does have to coerce some people so that others can remain politically free, because without being politically free, those people can't be virtuous. Because virtue isn't possible in a system where the state is coercing people."
Do you see the dilemma? Please let me know if I've misrepresented you. If I'm ok so far, I have some further thoughts about a way out of the dilemma.
You've argued that state force cannot create virtue, while admitting that it is sometimes required.
Why is it ever required? Is it to stop men from oppressing other men? Is it to preserve liberty for the innocent parties?
If that is your position, then it seems to me your statement "The anti-liberal society cannot be the virtuous society because it is not free" is a circular argument.
Let me try to demonstrate, if I can.
"Men cannot be free if the state is making them be virtuous. However, the state does have to coerce some people so that others can remain politically free, because without being politically free, those people can't be virtuous. Because virtue isn't possible in a system where the state is coercing people."
Do you see the dilemma? Please let me know if I've misrepresented you. If I'm ok so far, I have some further thoughts about a way out of the dilemma.