<i>&gt; That&#x27;s a distortion of what I meant.</i><p>It&#x27;s really not. GP (or whatever) was saying that perhaps there&#x27;s a reasonable difference of opinion. You responded by stating the author was wrong becuase &quot;there [is] one best way to serve the people&quot; and accusing GP of relativism (which is clearly a Bad Thing).<p><i>&gt; So respecting natural rights and popular sovereignty are not the right way to serve people?</i><p>Natural Rights: There are reasonable conceptions of natural rights which allow for the FBI&#x27;s interpretation of the All Writs Act. The exact scope and meaning of natural rights has never been and never will be resolved. Anyone proclaiming otherwise is just wrong. Hell, the philosophers who originated this concept had heated disagreements about their meaning. Things have only become more convoluted as we&#x27;ve tried to apply this idea in scaled-up settings.<p>Popular sovereignty: It&#x27;s not at all clear to me how what the FBI is doing violates popular soverignty. In fact, it seems to me that they are fully engaged in a PR campaign designed, precisely, to leverage the legitimacy of popular sovereignty...<p>More generally, &quot;natural rigths + popular sovereignty&quot; is not a deterministic algorithm. It&#x27;s entirely possible for people to adhere to both of thse philosophies and still vehemently disagree on the best way to govern. I might excuse a philosopher for not being able to foresee this fact 2000 or even 300 years ago. But clinging to the notion that &quot;natural rigths + popular sovereignty&quot; is a panacea to political disfunction after the past 200 years is rather astounding.<p>I happen to strongly agree with Apple and loathe what the FBI is trying to do. But I also think the argument you&#x27;re making here is dead wrong. The case against the FBI here is not based upon natural rights. It is either based upon constitutional rights, or it is based upon pure pragmatics. And the final answer will almost certainly the latter.<p><i>&gt; Your perspective on this was the point of Professor Bloom&#x27;s book, The Closing of the American Mind.</i><p>1. No, it really isn&#x27;t...<p>2. I was educated in exactly the style Bloom suggests. Suffice it to say that actually reading the classics has a way of undermining the authority that staunchy old conservative men try to get out of their particular interpretations and applications of ideas expressed in those books.<p>2a. Damned marxists bastardized Nietzsche and also rock music is for flooseys. lol<p>3. If Bloom&#x27;s opinions were at all sincerely held, he would likely have agreed with the observations about natural rights and popular sovereignty given above.<p><i>&gt; I don&#x27;t personally care what ill-informed people who are victims of the American Historical Association think about classical liberalism and human freedom.</i><p>Don&#x27;t worry, I use tin foil bookmarks.<p><i>&gt; The FBI will not exist in the future</i><p>Okay.