In his essay on democratic rights, Brettschneider establishes a value theory of democracy in which democratic ideals serve as guidance for the legitimacy of a democracy itself. Among these values, he writes, is an equality of interests. As Grace previously mentioned, the inordinate wealth of a minority can be used to influence the political process; action which would be seen as illegitimate under his theory. However, he also argues that his conception of democracy will protect the rights commonly associated with democracies, including freedom of speech. His theory, however, cannot reconcile the right to freedom of speech with equality of interests, if some people will be able to have more "speech" than others. It would seem that under his theory, freedom of speech would be thrown out whenever it can't be reconciled with his three principles, because they are more fundamental. In contrast, a theory of justice, like that proposed by Rawls (whom he dismisses because he doesn't want to defend the inherent worth of all humans), is able to weigh the costs and benefits to society associated with a tough choice between ideal democracy and freedom of speech, because it is concerned with a just society more broadly. I'm deeply concerned that Brettschneider's theory doesn't provide the protection he thinks it does for rights I see as fundamental, leaving open the possibility they will be unduly and unintentionally sacrificed. (Note: I don't necessarily see the case I presented as one in which free speech rights override concerns about the damage to the democratic procedure, but do view it as a case where Brettschneider's theory doesn't adequately address free speech concerns.)