Subscribeit may be thought surprising that one should have a right to do that which one ought not.is it not better to confine rights to that which it is right or at least permissible to do?but to say this is to misunderstand the nature of rights. one needs no right to be entitled to do the right thing. that it is right gives one all the title one needs. but one needs a right to be entitled to do that which one should not. it is an essential element of rights to action that they entitle one to do that which one should not. to say this is not, of course, to say that the purpose of rights of action is to increase wrong-doing. their purpose is to develop and protect the autonomy of the agent. they entitle him to choose for himself rightly or wrongly.but they cannot do that unless they entitle him to choose wrongly.and from david canadine, quoted by paxman:
For any society, in any age, the study of politics ultimately comes down to one elemental question: how are people persuaded to acquiesce in a polity where the distribution of power is manifestly unequal and unjust, as it invariably is?
for the people, by the people
posted by stevejensen at 4:17 PM on July 24, 2005