本研究在於釐清平均地權之主要目標及四大方法之平等概念，並建構平均地權平等概念之體系。其次並探討西方學說平等概念之詮釋，以及比較平均地權與西方學說平等概念之異同，以及檢視現行政策落實平均地權平等概念之現況。 　　經本研究歸納有關平等概念概念之文獻後，歸納出平等概念原則至少應考慮到立足點平等、能力原則、救助原則。而平均地權之平等概念，包括了「追求立足點的平等」、「以公平合理的方法達到立足點的平等」、以及「以漲價歸公達成救助原則」。惟在實行「漲價歸公」時，由於無法明確劃分土地漲價何者應歸公、何者應歸私之部分，故平均地權在按「能力原則」平等保障私人努力之成果的平等原則上，似仍有不足之處。 　　再者，西方學說平等中，功利主義乃注重「效益」及「最大多數人的幸福」，而平等原則只是達成上述目的之道德原則，亦即功利主義並未給予平等原則一明確之定義。自由主義者則較注重「能力原則」之平等維護，但並不注重「立足點的平等」及對弱勢者的協助。社群主義者之平等概念則是認為不同對象對於何為平等之主張亦會不同，故亦應因人、因事、因物而採取適當之平等原則。因此，社群主義之平等概念較為能兼顧社會不同對象之平等概念，而予以兼顧之。 　　而現行政策落實平均地權平等概念之檢視方面，雖然「平均地權條例」之內容，仍是按照平均地權四大方法之名稱以制定各項政策，但是檢視各項政策之內容後，則政策之實行現況仍未達成平均地權追求「地盡其利」、「地利共享」之使用土地、分配地利之「立足點平等」，以及冀求「漲價歸公」負起照顧弱勢以促其達到立足點平等之目的。 　　由於土地同時具有私人財產與為人類生活資源之特性，於在制定土地政策時，實應先界定土地究應視為生活資源或是私人資產。如此才能決定應以資源公開、平等使用，抑或是個人資產應平等維護之平等原則觀點來制定公平平等之土地政策。

民主原則之規範性困境，今日已於所有民主國家的政治生活中，展現為層出不窮的民主危機。尤其因為民粹威權主義於成熟民主國家的大行其道，民主危機的解決已成為當代民主迫在眉睫的問題。為求取釜底抽薪的解決之道，則必須從理論層面出發，對民主之概念進行徹底的反省。然而，法學本身顯然難以克服此一困境，而必須將道德哲學與政治哲學的理論資源與方法納入視野之內，以便從規範性證立民主的基本內涵開始，循序漸進地獲致其反映於制度層面應有的具體內容。 　　過往的民主理論證立民主之所以具有無法克服的困難，是因為其終須依賴當代多元社會下有爭議的道德信念。對此，本文以Jürgen Habermas的「論辯倫理學」為基礎，從而對民主的基本精神提出無爭議的規範性證立。透過論辯倫理學的進一步推演，Habermas亦導出「法律論辯理論」，以說明法律作為施展強制力的工具是如何被證立的。藉由結合論辯倫理學與法律論辯理論，便能將民主強制付諸於日常生活的實踐之中，據此呈現出民主作為憲法原則的應有樣貌。植基於此一的路徑，本文拓展了Habermas的理念，從而證立並闡發民主的核心精神。 　　此一依循論辯倫理學及法律論辯理論所獲致的民主原則內容，即為審議民主理論。依據前述的理論奠基，本文認為審議民主理論蘊含的內容可歸結為「論辯之基本權」以及「政治平等諸規則」兩大理念，並能透過基進民主理論的批判以深化對後者的理解，從而闡發審議民主理論的基進意涵。「基進審議民主」明確而豐富的內容不僅宣告著民主原則規範性困境之解決，也同時於實踐上提出了化解民主危機的制度建議。 / In the political life of all democracies, the normative dilemma of principle of democracy has appeared as endless crises of democracy. Accrodingly, to solve the crisis of democracy thus becomes an urgent issue for the contemporary democracy. As populist authoritarianism propagated on a upsetting scale around developed democracies, finding a resolution also grows more significant. To solve this problems once and for all, we must proceed forward from a theoretical perspective that indicate a profound reflection on the concept of democracy. Because jurisprudence becomes manifest in lack of proper paths to overcome this dilemma by itself, incorporating the theoretical resources and methods of ethics and political philosophy into the field of vision may be imperative and necessary. With the foundation that justifies fundamental connotations of democracy in a normative approch, we will obtain the specific contents that democracy reflects at the institutional level progressively. 　　Previous works on democratic theory are so difficult to justify democracy per se because their justifications depending on controversial moral beliefs in contemporary plural society drift into failure. In this regard, Jürgen Habermas advanced the “Discourse Ethics” which suggests a non-controversial normative justification of democratic essences as the most promising theory at present. Through employing Discourse Ethics, Habermas deduced “Discourse Theory of Law” to explain how to justify law as a compulsory instrument. In this manner, democracy can be forced into daily life, via combining Discourse Ethics and Discourse Theory of Law, to draw a ideal form as a a constitutional principle. Through the illustration of Habermas's doctrine, this thesis tries to broaden the ways to understand and describe the democracy. 　　“Deliberative Democracy” is the very idea derived from Discourse Ethics and Discourse Theory of Law. Based on the foundations of the above, this thesis suggests that the contents of Deliberative Democracy can be attributed to the two basic concepts including “fundamental rights of discourse” and “rules of political equality”, which, through criticisms of radical democracy, shall be further deepen the understanding of the latter to elucidate what radical meanings do Deliberative Democracy have. With specific and profuse contents, radical deliberative democracy not only invents a solution to the normative dilemma of principle of democracy, but puts forward institutional proposals to resolving crises of democracy in practice simultaneously.