I also do not see why this question was closed, for the reasons outlined: it would be a useful resource, unlikely to promote any great conflict or debate, and clearly on-topic for the site. I have some suspicions, though, which are worth raising for consideration by the community. I know the following to be true:
- There is a pervasive bias against political theory and philosophy within the academic discipline of political science (mainly in the Anglophone world), ostensibly because they do not lend themselves to the mathematical paradigms that some elements of the academic community use as a rubric for 'scientific'.
- There is a similar pervasive bias against political theory and philosophy in Anglophone intellectual communities, driven by a similar (but far looser and less tenable) ostentation that they do not satisfy 'empirical' principles.
Both of these stretch back to a centuries-old, nasty schism in the philosophical community between Empiricism and Rationalism (if anyone here cares about the history of the matter), and the biases have strong overtones of anti-religiosity (both in the original efforts of science to separate itself from the Church, and the modern conflicts between liberal secularist and Christian fundamentalist politics). Opposition to open-ended questions like this is often an unconscious, knee-jerk response, prompted by a half-imagined fear that zealots, kooks, or angry sophists will see it as an opportunity to establish a foothold on the site.
No real criticism meant: it's a good-hearted response by people trying to do what's best for the site. But the unconscious application of that well-meaning effort catches otherwise inoffensive questions like this one. I think we all have to recognize that this bias exists in our (overtly Anglophone) community, and take some efforts to counter it.
