The Paradox of Liberal Democracy

The Paradox of Liberal Democracy:
I. Majoritarianism, Individual Rights and the Rule of Law
II. Legal Paternalism, Legal Moralism and Personal Autonomy
Aristides N. Hatzis
Associate Professor
University of Athens
Global Law & Governance Summer SchoolGlobal Law & Governance Summer School
EPLO, July 23, 2015EPLO, July 23, 2015

The Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David (1787)

Aristophanes, The Clouds (423 BC)
Socrates

Socrates
Then the laws will say: "Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present
attempt you are going to do us wrong. [...] For, after having brought you into the
world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a
share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to
every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has
seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he
pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or
interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to
go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods
with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order
justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an
implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys
us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: [...] thirdly, because he has made an
agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither
obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do
not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or
convincing us; that is what we offer and he does neither. These are the sort
of accusations to which, as we were saying, you, Socrates, will be exposed if you
accomplish your intentions; you, above all other Athenians." [...] And first of all
answer this very question: Are we right in saying that you agreed to be governed
according to us in deed, and not in word only? Is that true or not?" How shall we
answer that, Crito? Must we not agree?
Plato, Crito (360 BC), tr. Benjamin Jowett

Shock!
• Socrates was sentenced to death by a
democratic majority
• ...for being skeptical about democracy and
majority rule

Questions
In a political community
• Who is deciding what?
– The King?
– An Oligarchy?
• The Strongest?
• The Richest?
• The Wisest? (the Educated?)
• The Priests?
• The Noblemen?
• The Party?
– The Majority?
The Individual?

Are there any limits?
• The one(s) who decide(s)...
• ...are they to decide on everything?
• ...or are there limits to their decision-making?

The Athenian Answer
• The Majority
– Demos (οι πολλοί)
• Solon
• Ephialtes
• Cleisthenes
• Pericles
Demagogues
You possess all the attributes of a demagogue; a
screeching, horrible voice, a perverse, crossgrained
nature and the language of the market-place. In you all is
united which is needful for governing. (Aristophanes, The
Knights)

Eukrates’ law for the
protection of democracy
337 BC
Ευκράτης Αριστοτίμου Πειραιεύς είπεν. Αγαθήι τύχηι του δήμου
του Αθηναίων. Δεδόχθαι τοις νομοθέταις. Εάν τις επαναστήι
τώι δήμωι επί τυραννίδι ή την τυραννίδα συνκαταστήσηι ή
τον δήμον τον Αθηναίων ή την δημοκρατίαν την Αθήνησιν
καταλύσηι, ος αν τον τούτων τι ποιήσαντα αποκτείνηι, όσιος
έστω. Μη εξείναι δε των βουλευτών των της βουλής της εξ
Αρείου Πάγου, καταλελυ(μ)ένου του δήμου ή της
δημοκρατίας της Αθήνησιν ανιέναι εις Άρειον Πάγον μηδέ
συνκαθίζειν εν τώι συνεδρίωι μηδέ βουλεύειν μεδέ περί
ενός. Εάν δε τις του δήμου ή της δημοκρατίας
καταλελυμένων των Αθήνησιν ανίηι των βουλευτών των εξ
Αρείου πάγου εις Άρειον Πάγον ή συγκαθίζηι εν τώι
συνεδρίωι ή βουλεύηι περί τινος, άτιμος έστω και αυτός και
γένος το εξ εκείνου και η ουσία δημοσία έστω αυτού και της
θεού το επιδέκατον.
PREVIOUS LAW:
Εάν τις δημοκρατίαν καταλύη την αθήνησιν, ή αρχήν τινα άρχη
καταλελυμένης της δημοκρατίας, πολέμιος έστω Αθηναίων
και νηποινεί τεθνάτω, και τα χρήματα αυτού δημόσια έστω,
και της θεού το επιδέκατον. Ο δε αποκτείνας τον ταύτα
ποιήσαντα και ο συμβουλέυσας όσιος έστω και ευαγής.
Ομόσαι δ’ Αθηναίους άπαντας καθ’ ιερών τελειών, κατά
φυλάς και κατά δήμους, αποκτενείν τον ταύτα ποιήσαντα…
Demophantus Law (410 BC)

Eukrates’ law
for the protection of
democracy
337 BC
[...] Eukrates, son of Aristodimos, of Peiraeus,
made the motion; with Good Fortune of the
Demos of the Athenians, be it resolved by the
Nomothetai [lawgivers]: If anyone should rise
up against the Demos for tyranny or join in
establishing the tyranny or overthrow the
Demos of the Athenians or the democracy in
Athens, whoever kills him who does any of
these things shall be blameless. [...]
RULE BY THE PEOPLE: The source of
political power is The People (the principle
of the sovereignty of the people).

Was Athens a Rule of Law;
• Were there institutional boundaries to the
power of the majority?
• Were individual rights recognized or the
individual was defenseless against the will of
the powerful majority?

Democracy of Laws
There are, as you know, fellow-citizens, three
forms of government in the world tyranny,
oligarchy, and democracy. Tyrannies and
oligarchies are administered according to the
tempers of their lords, but democratic
states according to their own established
laws. For [...] if the laws are faithfully upheld
for the state, the democracy also is
preserved.
Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon (336 BC) tr.
Charles Darwin Adams
Aeschines (330 BC)

Democracy of Laws
There are, as you know, fellow-citizens, three
forms of government in the world tyranny,
oligarchy, and democracy. Tyrannies and
oligarchies are administered according to the
tempers of their lords, but democratic
states according to their own established
laws. For [...] if the laws are faithfully upheld
for the state, the democracy also is
preserved.
Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon (336 BC) tr.
Charles Darwin Adams
Aeschines (330 BC)
Demosthenes
Exile

Therefore it is preferable for the
law to rule rather than any
one of the citizens, and
according to this same
principle, even if it be better
for certain men to govern, they
must be appointed as
guardians of the laws and in
subordination to them.
Aristotle, Politics (350 B.C.)

Therefore it is preferable for the
law to rule rather than any
one of the citizens, and
according to this same
principle, even if it be better
for certain men to govern, they
must be appointed as
guardians of the laws and in
subordination to them.
Aristotle, Politics (350 B.C.)
But this is just a theory...

What we’ve seen
• The idea of restraining government’s power
was present in ancient law
• The idea of democracy (majoritarianism and
popular sovereignty) was an “Athenian”
invention
• The idea of an institutional framework
restraining the majority was also discussed in
Ancient Athens in theory

What we haven’t seen
• Individual rights
– Not even the idea of
– Political rights are recognized
• Actual institutional restraints to the power of
majority
– Athens was not a Rule of Law
• Individuality
– The citizen is only part of an organic whole (society,
polis [city], state, community)
– The concept of individuality was alien to ancient
Greeks

The Political/Insitutional Problem
Abuse of Power
Lord Acton's dictum. I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and
King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If
there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power,
increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the
want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they
exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency
or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact
that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
John Emerich Edward Dahberg-Acton, 1st
Baron Acton (1834-1902), Essay on Freedom and Power, 1870

And then
• The end of the discussion in both theory and
practice

Rome
“Law is whatever the King likes”
Roman-Byzantine Law
Princeps legibus solutus est (Ulpian)
(The Sovereign is not bound by the Laws)

Niccolò MachiavelliMarsilio da Padova
The beginning of
modern
democratic
thought
“Sea democracies” or rather
constitutional oligarchies: Amalfi,
Pisa, Genova, Venezia, Ancona,
Ragusa, Firenze, Bologna και
Siena

Martin Luther
Schloßkirche (31/10/1517)

Colonialism, missionaries and
native population
Are they men or beasts?

Bartolomé de Las Casas
(1484-1566)
All men have natural
rights. Even those who
are not white. Even
those who are not
civilized. Even those
who are not Christians.

The Salamanca School
Individuals have natural
rights: material (life, property)
and spiritual (freedom of
thought, human dignity)
Francisco Suárez
1548-1617
“right to revolution”
Francisco de Vitoria
1483-1546
“rights of the native people
in the Americas?

Magna Carta (1215)
the greatest constitutional
document of all times
– the foundation of
the freedom of the
individual against the
arbitrary authority of
the despot (Lord
Denning)
No Freeman shall be taken or
imprisoned, or be disseised
of his Freehold, or Liberties,
or free Customs, or be
outlawed, or exiled, or any
other wise destroyed; nor
will We not pass upon him,
nor condemn him, but by
lawful judgment of his
Peers, or by the Law of the
Land. We will sell to no man,
we will not deny or defer to
any man either Justice or
Right.

The “constitution” of Great Britain
• Charter of Liberties (1100)
• Magna Carta (1215)
• The Petition of Right (1628)
(English Civil War, 1642-1651)
(Commonwealth of England 1649-1660)
• Habeas Corpus Act (1679)
(Glorious Revolution, 1688)
• Bill of Rights (1689)

Henry the 8th (1534):
Where does the prince get this power, and his
power to enforce the law? He gets it through a
legislative body, which acts on behalf of the
citizens. It is from the will of the people,
expressed in Parliament, that a king derives
his kingship. (p. 532)
Thomas Cromwell:
‘It's the law of the land. The custom of the
country.’
Lady Alice More:
‘I thought Henry was set over the law.’
Thomas Cromwell:
‘We don’t live at Constantinople, Dame Alice.
(p. 606)
Hilary Mantel, Wolf Hall (2009)

House
of
Lords
Early
19th
century

House of
Commons
early 19th c.

In after days, when I knew the
ground better, I used to think
sometimes (if such a
comparison may be
permitted), that the quiet,
polished, tame first division
was to the robust, riotous,
demonstrative second
division, what the English
House of Lords is to the
House of Commons.
Charlotte Brontë, Villette (1853)

19th Century
England Social
Hierarchy

It is a truth universally
acknowledged, that a single man
in possession of a good fortune,
must be in want of a wife.
However little known the feelings or
views of such a man may be on
his first entering a neighbourhood,
this truth is so well fixed in the
minds of the surrounding families,
that he is considered as the
rightful property of some one or
other of their daughters.
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (1813)
He spoke well; but there were feelings besides
those of the heart to be detailed; and he was
not more eloquent on the subject of
tenderness than of pride. His sense of her
inferiority—of its being a degradation—of the
family obstacles which had always opposed to
inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth which
seemed due to the consequence he was
wounding, but was very unlikely to
recommend his suit.

The evening arrived; the boys took their
places. The master, in his cook’s uniform,
stationed himself at the copper; his pauper
assistants ranged themselves behind him;
the gruel was served out; and a long grace
was said over the short commons. The
gruel disappeared; the boys whispered
each other, and winked at Oliver; while his
next neighbours nudged him. Child as he
was, he was desperate with hunger, and
reckless with misery. He rose from the
table; and advancing to the master, basin
and spoon in hand, said: somewhat
alarmed at his own temerity: ‘Please, sir, I
want some more.’
Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist (1837)

A.V. Dicey
• Parliamentary sovereignty
– Primacy of the Parliament
• House of Lords
• House of Commons
• The rule of law
An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the
Constitution (1885)

John Locke (1632-1704)
• Natural Rights: Life, Liberty, Property
• Legitimacy of the government rests on the
consent of the governed.
• The government should protect these rights
• Otherwise the people have the right to
revolution

Benjamin Constant (1767-1830)
Athénée Royal (Paris,
1819)
De la liberté des Anciens
comparée à celle des
Modernes

Two kinds of Liberty
• Liberty of the Ancients
– participatory democracy
– citizenship in an organic city-state
– slavery
– virtuous citizens
• Liberty of the Moderns
– representative democracy
– rights, freedom from the state
– commercial society
– freedom of choice

Our constitution does not copy the laws of
neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to
others than imitators ourselves. Its administration
favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is
called a democracy. [...] The freedom which we
enjoy in our government extends also to our
ordinary life. There, far from exercising a
jealous surveillance over each other, we do not
feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor
for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in
those injurious looks which cannot fail to be
offensive, although they inflict no positive
penalty.
Pericles [Thucydides] 430 B.C.

Two principles
• The Democratic principle
– the decisions are made collectively
– majority rule
– people’s sovereignty
• The Liberal principle
– some decisions should not be made collectively
but individually
– rule of law (due process + rights)
– personal autonomy

The Paradox of Liberal Democracy
• Majority decides on everything
• With some exceptions
• Areas where individual / not society is sovereign
• These areas are defined by individual rights
• Protected by the constitution
Since men (even majorities) cannot decide on
everything but are bound by laws (Constitution)
this is a Rule of Law

Why is this a Paradox?
• Tendency for the expansion of liberal principle
• Less area for society/government/state to
decide (i.e. majority) more area for the
individual
• From Status to Contract (Henry Maine)
• These two principles are inherently antithetical
• However, the balance of them defines the
quality of a democracy
– No liberalism without a democracy
– Illiberal democracy

Thomas Hobbes
And this therefore is another error of Aristotle’s
politics, that in a well-ordered commonwealth,
not men should govern but the law. What man,
that has his natural senses, though he can
neither write nor read, does not find himself
governed by them he fears, and believes can kill
or hurt him when he obeyeth not? Or believes
that law can hurt him; that is, words and paper,
without the hands and swords of men?
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

In such condition there is no place
for industry, because the fruit
thereof is uncertain, and
consequently, not culture of the
earth, no navigation, nor the use of
commodities that may be imported
by sea, no commodious building,
no instruments of moving and
removing such things as require
much force, no knowledge of the
face of the earth, no account of
time, no arts, no letters, no society,
and which is worst of all, continual
fear and danger of violent death,
and the life of man, solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
The state of nature:
bellum omnium contra
omnes (πόλεμος όλων
εναντίον όλων)

“he that is bound to himself only, is not
bound”
Rule of law: infeasible, dangerous, logical
impossibility

Question
How (and who is) to create a system of laws protecting
individuals against the government, the majority, the
politically powerful?
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. (Lord Acton)
From such crooked wood as man is made, nothing
perfectly straight can be built. (Kant)

Enlightenment!
• Rationality
– Science
• Scientific
Revolution
– Skepticism
• Individualism
– Political Equality
– Toleration
Hume
Voltaire Descartes
Newton

American Revolution (1765-1783)

Maximilien de
Robespierre
1758-1794
Jean-Paul Marat
1743-1793
Georges Danton
1759-1794
Camille Desmoulins
1760-1794
Louis Antoine de Saint-Just
1767-1794

Gilbert du Motier
Marquis de Lafayette
1757-1834

1807 (The Coronation of Napoleon)

Jean Leon Gerome Ferris,
Writing the Declaration of
Independence, 1776

The Declaration of Independence
1776 [John Trumbull (1826)]

Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
July 4, 1776

Washington Crossing the Delaware
(Emmanuel Gottlieb Leutze, 1851)

George Washington
1789-1797
King: What will he do now?
West: He will resign and return to private life.
King: If he does that, sir, he will be the greatest
man in the world.
George III with Benjamin West (1783)

Fraunces
Tavern
December 4, 1783

December 4, 1783
With a heart full of love
and gratitude, I now take
leave of you. I most
devoutly wish that your
latter days may be as
prosperous and happy
as your former ones
have been glorious and
honorable.

George Washington
U.S. President
1789-1797
In our progress towards political happiness my
station is new; and if I may use the expression, I
walk on untrodden ground.
Jan. 1, 1790

Thomas Paine
(1737-1809)
Common Sense (1776)
The American Crisis (1776-
1783)
Rights of Man (1791)
The Age of Reason (1793-4)
Agrarian Justice (1795)
Without the pen of Paine, the
sword of Washington would
have been wielded in vain
(John Adams)

The debate about the new state
Alexander Hamilton
Thomas Jefferson & James Madison

Thomas Jefferson
1801-1809
Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness

James Madison (1751-1836)
If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal
controls on government would be
necessary. In framing a
government which is to be
administered by men over men,
the great difficulty lies in this: You
must first enable the government
to control the governed; and in the
next place oblige to control itself.
James Madison (1788), Federalist #51, The
Federalists
1809-1817

James Madison
• separation of powers
– Legislative
– Executive
– Judicial
• representative democracy
• checks & balances
The U.S. Supreme Court
The accumulation of all powers,
legislative, executive and judiciary, in
the same hands, whether of one, a
few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self-appointed or elective, may justly be
pronounced the very definition of
tyranny.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall
have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in
his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for
his defence.

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.

Henry David Thoreau
1817-1862
Resistance to Civil
Government (Civil
Disobedience), 1849
“That government is
best which governs
least”

The end of Slavery
13th Amendment (1865)
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as
a punishment for crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
that this nation, under God, shall have a
new birth of freedom -- and that
government of the people, by the
people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln (“The Gettysburg Address”, 19/11/1863)

Constitutional Liberal Democracy

Constitutional Liberal Democracy
British Parliament
French
Cabinet
U.S. Supreme Court

The paradox of liberal democracy
Democratic Principle
Popular Sovereignty
Majority
Collective Decisions
Liberal Principle
Rule of Law
Minorities & Individuals
Individual Rights

The final question
What’s the area of individual sovereignty?
In which cases the individual should decide for
herself?
- personally autonomous

• The democratic view: Society should decide
what behavior is acceptable
• The liberal view: The individual should be free
to choose for herself

tyranny of the majority
[P]hrases as ‘self-government,’ and ‘the power of the
people over themselves,’ do not express the true
state of the case. The ‘people’ who exercise the
power are not always the same people with those
over whom it is exercised; and the ‘self-
government’ spoken of is not the government of
each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The
will of the people, moreover, practically means the
will of the most numerous or the most active part
of the people; the majority, or those who succeed
in making themselves accepted as the majority
[…] ‘the tyranny of the majority’ is now generally
included among the evils against which society
requires to be on its guard. (Mill 1859: I4)

The Harm Principle
The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually
or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of
any of their number, is self-protection. That the only
purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over
any member of a civilized community, against his will, is
to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical
or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be
compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for
him to do so, because it will make him happier, because,
in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even
right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which
he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.
In the part which merely concerns himself, his
independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his
own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, 1859)

Two objections
• Legal Paternalism (individuals are not rational)
• Legal Moralism (free choice is not always a
moral choice)

Legal moralism
conventional morality
James Fitzjames Stephen
Patrick Devlin

Four Cases
• Harm to Others
• Offense to Others
• Harm to Self
• Harmless Wrong-doing
– Social/Conventional morality

The Harm Principle
There are many who consider as an injury to
themselves any conduct which they have a distaste
for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings; as
a religious bigot, when charged with disregarding
the religious feelings of others, has been known to
retort that they disregard his feelings, by persisting
in their abominable worship or creed. But there is
no parity between the feeling of a person for his
own opinion, and the feeling of another who is
offended at his holding it; no more than between
the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire
of the right owner to keep it.
John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, 1859)

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (2003)
“[B]arring an individual from the protections,
benefits, and obligations of civil marriage
solely because that person would marry a
person of the same sex violates the
Massachusetts Constitution.”
“We construe civil marriage to mean the
voluntary union of two people as spouses, to
the exclusion of all others.”

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (2003)
“[T]he right to marry means little if it does not include
the right to marry the person of one’s choice, subject
to appropriate government restrictions in the
interests of public health, safety and welfare.”
“Our obligation is to define the liberty of all,
not to mandate our own moral code.”

Is this a Rights issue?
Richard Posner (2003)
“[A]ny person who wants a marriage license has a strong presumptive
right to it regardless of how the person defines marriage. He might be a
man who wanted to marry his sister (both being sterile), or a very
mature twelve-year-old boy (say, a freshman at MIT) who wanted to
marry his twelve-year-old girlfriend (say, a freshman at Harvard), or a
married man who wanted additional wives so that they might help out
his current wife around the house, or a busy professional woman who
wanted two husbands, the better to take care of the house and the kids,
or a homosexual male who wanted three male spouses.”
“[I]f a man wanted to marry his sterile sister, his eighty-year-old
grandmother, three other women, two men, and his chihuahua, a court
would have to turn somersaults to come up with a "compelling state
interest" that would forbid these matches.”

Obergefell et al. v. Hodges (2015)
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the
highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.
In forming a marital union, two people become something
greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in
these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may
endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men
and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their
plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they
seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to
be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of
civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in
the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Justice Anthony Kennedy

Who has the right? Society/Individual
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Human Cloning
4. Organ sale
5. Drug Use
6. Pornography
7. Surrogacy
8. Body after death
9. Sexual relations
10. Prostitution
11. Dressing
12. Body sculpture
HUMAN DIGNITY
SELF-OWNERSHIP

right to self-ownership
To every Individual in nature is given an individual property by
nature, not to be invaded or usurped by any; for everyone as
he is himselfe, so he has a self propriety, else could he not be
himselfe [...] Every man by nature being a King, Priest and
Prophet in his owne naturall circuit an compasse. (Richard
Overton, An Arrow Against all Tyrants, 1646)
• [E]very Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body
had any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the
Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. (John
Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689)

Thank you!Thank you!
ahatzis@phs.uoa.gr
http://www.phs.uoa.gr/ahatzis

The Paradox of Liberal Democracy

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (6)

Similaire à The Paradox of Liberal Democracy

Similaire à The Paradox of Liberal Democracy (8)

Plus de Aristides Hatzis

Plus de Aristides Hatzis (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

The Paradox of Liberal Democracy