The question above is incomplete, below is the complete version of the question:
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once
in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period
continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor
because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the
strongest. But a government in which the majority rules in all cases cannot be
based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a
government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but
conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule
of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the
least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a
conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.
a. After all, the practical reason why, when the power is
once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long
period continue, to rule
b. But a government in which the majority rules in all cases
cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.
c. Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least
degree, resign his conscience to the legislator?
d. I think that we should be men first, and subjects
afterward.
ANSWER
The correct option is C.
The author is one of those people who believed that the government should be subjected to its citizen. He is of the opinion that the people who are been ruled are greater than the rulers because they are the one who put them in power. Thus, the statement given in option C implies that, citizens are not expected to subject their conscience to any legislator or government since they are of more value than the government.
