First, thanks for the knowledge.

The problem always comes back to the "tension" between people as separate and independent beings (Locke, et al.) and our nature as social beings, living together in groups we call societies. Everyone running around doing what they claim to be 'right' is not a formula for a viable societal existence--unless a society consists only of people who have the same "religious," in Kierkegaard's sense, convictions concerning human governance.

As I see it, our social nature is verifiable common knowledge and therefore must take precedence over personal claims of 'higher' knowledge as far as the governance of society is concerned--to include the conduct of all individuals in their interactions with other people in a society. Warren J. Samuels discussed the implications of humans as "beings who must choose and act" within the temporal context. That "plane" of choosing and acting is also integral to being human and provides a point of departure for devising a principle of governance for society.