Assignment task: If you would be kind enough to elaborate on these two questions if it is not too much trouble.
1) Taylor thinks that the liberal conception of autonomy is only possible if the state promotes and protects a conception of the common good. The US, and other divers countries, do not have a singular conception of the common good. Does this mean that Americans are not fully autonomous?
2) Beitz criticizes Rawls for presuming states are self-sufficient and for neglecting the possibility of resource redistribution in the global original position. Beitz sees an analogy between Rawls' claim that the distribution of innate talent is morally 'arbitrary', and his own claim that the distribution of natural resources is also morally arbitrary. Does this analogy hold? Is there an argument that a state rightly benefits from its own natural resources?