In reply to:

"It follows that a necessary condition for fundamental rights is a distinction between what the government -- in the wide sense of the term -- says is so and what is true. That is, in order for me to understand that I have fundamental rights, it must be possible for me to have the following thought: that even though everyone else in my community thinks that, for example, same-sex marriages should be outlawed, people of the same sex still have a right to be married.



So, we could extrapolate that even though everyone else in my community thinks that drunk people peeing on on other peoples' front lawns while walking home from the bar at 2AM should be outlawed, drunk people still have the right to relieve themselves anywhere they can.

OR

Even though everyone else in my community thinks that people breaking into other people's homes to steal for food, or anything else, poor people still have the right to some of the "public wealth".

OR

Even though everyone else in my community thinks that car jacking is wrong, poeple who don't have cars deserve to ride in one once in a while.

The author is simply trying to blur the distinction between right and wrong. He obviously feels that society is doomed to continue degrading at it's current rate, and is trying to justify why we shouldn't make any attempts to correct it. It's a clear case of fear of success.

M- M60s/VP150/QS8s/SVS PC-Ultra/HK630 Sit down. Shut up. Listen.