The author mentioned that there is a clear difference between saying that someone has a right to do something in this sense and saying that it is the right thing for him to do or that he does no wrong in doing it. Someone may have the right to do something that is wrong for him to do.

            It was said that conservatives and liberals do agree that sometimes a man does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscience so requires. 

            I think that in this chapter it points out that one must know their rights. And not everything that is for us will do well for us is a right thing to do. Sometimes things that we think that is right for us are not always right in the eyes of many. We should do right things based on what is right for many and not just what will benefit us.

            The author mentioned something also about organized labor, even this picture he said is now archaic.  He also said that claiming that one has a right is another sort of thing once can do with language. He also mentioned that if there conceivable circumstances in which one would admit rights differently there is no doubt that their characteristic use and that for which they are distinctively well suited.