Political philosophy is a large hunting ground, but the editors do a commendable job of breaking it down into its constituent elements. Since the subject matter is so broad the authors must apply a rather strict criterion of which thinkers and material to present. First, they aim to present ideas that have a certain continuity, ones that are perennial in nature and that all societies must confront. Second, they tend to select works that are rigorously logical and factual, so nothing in the way of mysticism or superstition. And finally, they seek to present ideas with a modern resonance, issues that have not been resolved over the ages. (So no commentary on slavery or how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin).

The editors think -- and I agree with them -- that it is best not to think of political philosophy as a single entity, but rather as a multi-layered synthesis comprising many building blocks that can be arranged in a variety of ways. To develop a thorough and systematic understanding of political philosophy it is important to scrutinize each building block in turn before placing them in any arrangement. The building blocks include human nature, the justification for the state, liberty and rights, economic justice, alternatives to liberalism, and progress and civilization. Introducing politico neophytes to political philosophy with a section on human nature is I think most fruitful since all the larger questions in political philosophy are at root questions about human nature. Are we greedy of altruistic? Are we cooperative or competitive? Does society shape our nature (as Owen thought) or does our nature shape and give rise to society (as Aristotle thought)? How fluid is gender? Is it rigid, a la Aristotle and Darwin or malleable, a la Alison Jaggar? Human nature is the real source of contention in political philosophy, while the other issues are derivative. While the editors do not emphasize the point to any large extent, I think it would not be uncharacteristically bold to suggest that most of the shifts in the political winds come on the heels of radically new ideas about human nature. The ideas that electrified Europe in the French Revolution and later in the Bolshevik Revolution had their origin in a radically new set of ideas about human nature that were essentially egalitarian, which is in sharp contrast to the aristocratic view of human nature of Aristotle and our Founding Fathers. Also, one point that the editors never make and one that might generate some confusion is that while most of political philosophy is normative i.e. it deals with value judgments, the subject of human nature is empirical. So while no amount of scientific tinkering and fact finding can tell you that majority rule is better than the rule of law or that Locke's labor justification for property-rights is absolute, it should be possible to frame a predictable and identifiable picture of human nature. This would go along way to resolving a great many political disputes.