There can be no excuse for disobeying the laws when each has established the law for himself.
De concordantia catholica (The Catholic Concordance) (1434)
“Government by majorities can be made less oppressive by devolution, by placing the decision of questions primarily affecting only a section of the community in the hands of that section, rather than of a Central Chamber. In this way, men are no longer forced to submit to decisions made in a hurry by people mostly ignorant of the matter in hand and not personally interested.”
Ch VIII: The World As It Could Be Made
1910s, Proposed Roads To Freedom (1918)
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Do you have more details about the quote "Government by majorities can be made less oppressive by devolution, by placing the decision of questions primarily affe…" by Bertrand Russell?
Bertrand Russell 562
logician, one of the first analytic philosophers and politi… 1872–1970Related quotes
George W. Bush
(1946) 43rd President of the United States
At the Mar del Plata Summit of the Americas, November 4, 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/04/bush.summit/index.html
2000s, 2005
“Decisions are best made by the people affected by them.”
Gloria Steinem
(1934) American feminist and journalist
Source: My Life on the Road
“I would rather have a wrong decision made than no decision at all.”
Robert S. McNamara
(1916–2009) American businessman and Secretary of Defense
Quoted in: Charles A. Stevenson (2006), SECDEF: The Nearly Impossible Job of Secretary of Defense http://books.google.com/books?id=2NXbS5AG_8QC&pg=PA28, p. 28
Calvin Coolidge
(1872–1933) American politician, 30th president of the United States (in office from 1923 to 1929)
1920s, Second State of the Union Address (1924)
Harold Wilson
(1916–1995) Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Speech to the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool (28 September 1965), quoted in The Times (29 September 1965), p. 5.
Prime Minister
: The Foundations of Liberal Policy § 10. The Argument of Fascism https://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp,Ch.1
Liberalism (1927)
Context: Now it cannot be denied that the only way one can offer effective resistance to violent assaults is by violence. Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, weapons must be used in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to display weakness before murderers. No liberal has ever called this into question. What distinguishes liberal from Fascist political tactics is not a difference of opinion in regard to the necessity of using armed force to resist armed attackers, but a difference in the fundamental estimation of the role of violence in a struggle for power. The great danger threatening domestic policy from the side of Fascism lies in its complete faith in the decisive power of violence. In order to assure success, one must be imbued with the will to victory and always proceed violently. This is its highest principle. What happens, however, when one's opponent, similarly animated by the will to be victorious, acts just as violently? The result must be a battle, a civil war. The ultimate victor to emerge from such conflicts will be the faction strongest in number. In the long run, a minority — even if it is composed of the most capable and energetic — cannot succeed in resisting the majority. The decisive question, therefore, always remains: How does one obtain a majority for one's own party? This, however, is a purely intellectual matter. It is a victory that can be won only with the weapons of the intellect, never by force. The suppression of all opposition by sheer violence is a most unsuitable way to win adherents to one's cause. Resort to naked force — that is, without justification in terms of intellectual arguments accepted by public opinion — merely gains new friends for those whom one is thereby trying to combat. In a battle between force and an idea, the latter always prevails.