Akadēmiskā · Dienasgrāmata

(..) In the US at least, many find it acceptable for companies and individuals to use campaign contributions to influence legislators - for example, to affect their stance on pending legislation or to induce them to intercede with executive officials. But if the rules may be tailored in this way through money, then why not through an old friendship or, indeed, kinship?
It is also widely considered acceptable for legislators from underprivileged minorities vigorously to promote the collective interests of 'their people.' And if prioritising the interests of Hispanics is alright for Hispanic legislators, then why should it not be alright for Hispanic citizens to do the same? And if trying to affect the rules in favor of one's ethnic group is alright for Hispanics, then why not for whites as well?
It is not only a general de-moralisation of the culture that gnaws away at the level playing field ideal, but also the Anglo-American persuasion that an adversarial clash of conflicting partialities is conductive to substantive fairness. This sentiment makes it possible for partiality - paradigmatically illustrated by prosecutors and defence attorneys doing their utmost to win their cases - to appear as a sacred mission and duty that is required for the sake of the very impartiality that it also persistently assaults through compliance redefined. (..)

Thomas Pogge, 'World Poverty and Human Rights' nodaļa 'The Bounds of Nationalism' jeb Pogge, T. (2008) World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity. p. 129.