The paper begins with a hypothetical story and asks: how should a Rawlsian political liberal state justify its coercion over Nozick, an unreasonable but intelligible citizen (UIC)? I use this thought experiment to illustrate a recent critique of political liberalism. It argues that political liberalism coerces UIC on a sectarian ground. Call it the sectarian critique. My paper addresses the sectarian critique from a political liberal perspective. I suggest a condition of state conjecture, which argues that the state officials should use conjecture to engage with UIC, like Nozick. This brings two benefits to the stability of a political liberal society. First, UIC may be convinced and become reasonable citizens. Secondly, the activity of offering conjectures can strengthen the public confidence of political liberalism as a valuable collective project. Although, eventually, some UIC may remain unpersuaded and be coerced on grounds that are unjustified to them, the force of the sectarian critique will be significantly weakened after the condition of state conjecture is fulfilled.

本文从一个假设的故事开始，并提出了一个问题：罗尔斯的政治自由主义国家应该如何证明其对无理但可理解的公民（UIC）的强迫？我用这个思想实验来说明最近对政治自由主义的批评。它认为，政治自由主义以宗派为由强迫UIC。称其为宗派批评。我的论文从政治自由主义的角度论述了宗派批评。我提出了一种国家猜想的条件，该条件认为国家官员应该像诺齐克一样利用猜想与UIC进行接触。这给政治自由社会的稳定带来了两个好处。首先，UIC可能会被说服并成为合理的公民。第二，提供猜想的活动可以增强公众对政治自由主义的信心，因为它是一个有价值的集体项目。尽管最终一些UIC可能仍不为人所接受，并因其不合理的理由而被强迫，但在国家猜想的条件得到满足后，宗派批评的力量将被大大削弱。