Historical Errors

How can one submit something like this for publication – and possibly expect positive review?

In the course of the actual attainment of selfish ends – an attainment conditioned in this way by universality – there is formed a system of complete interdependence, wherein the livelihood, happiness, and legal status of one man is interwoven with the livelihood, happiness, and rights of all. On this system, individual Happiness, &c., depend, and only in this connected system are they actualised and secured. This system may be prima facie regarded as the external state, the state based on need, the state as the Understanding envisages it.

The Idea in this its stage of division imparts to each of its moments a characteristic embodiment; to particularity it gives the right to develop and launch forth in all directions; and to universality the right to prove itself not only the ground and necessary form of particularity, but also the authority standing over it and its final end. It is the system of the ethical order, split into its extremes and lost, which constitutes the Idea’s abstract moment, its moment of reality. Here the Idea is present only as a relative totality and as the inner necessity behind this outward appearance.

Isn’t such sentence simply an attempt to link a vast number of abstract concepts and statements in a rather inconsistent way, then mixing it with simplistic and unexplained statements like ‘Happiness’?

A short note of explanation: the author of those sentnences did not submit it anywhere and it had not been reviewed. But published and at one stage well recognised as an important contribution to philosophical thinking. It is § 183 and 184 of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, talking about Civil Society.