Heroes & Philosophy: Does One Man Have the Right to Decide What's Right For All?

Does One Man Have the Right to Decide What's Right For All?

I'm going to be honest for a moment here, I'm playing catch-up on Season 3 of Heroes and so I've only seen one of the episodes in chapter four. That said, I'm speaking from the vantage point of ignorance, and Nathan Petrelli may have sprung off into a different realm by now... who knows.

But, I digress.

Throughout each season of Heroes, Nathan Petrelli seems to be the object of an awful lot of attention, appropriately so, seeing as he's either running for elected office or in a position of power and influence. Season One saw Nathan being used as a pawn by The Company and Linderman and in the first portion of Season Three, it seems Nathan's father has similar intentions.

And eventually, they get to him.

Where I left off, Nathan has basically declared war on his own kind. He's become a one man army, hunting down those with abilities in an attempt to save them from themselves (and also spare the rest of humanity). The first episode of Chapter Four looks an awful lot like the current political ideology regarding Terrorism since 2001- round up anyone suspicious before they can harm themselves and others!

But rather than getting into an ideological discussion on whether or not it's appropriate to preemptively detain innocent people (just in case they are a danger to others), I want to steer the discussion in a different direction.

Here's the question:
Who has the right to make such a bold proclamation?
In the United States, we practice a modified version of democracy called a "representative democracy." This means that we elect public officials who we trust to be "our voice" on matters of public policy. Hypothetically, these elected officials are supposed to act in the interests of the people they represent (although they rarely do). So, as an elected official Nathan Petrelli, is supposed to be acting not only on his own behalf- but on behalf of anyone who has elected him.

But here's the thing- Nathan's first "election" was rigged, and now he's in the senate by appointment. So, he was never actually elected as the voice of the people... This means that although he's in a position that's typically seen as a representitive role, he is in fact, there on his own. He's being given the power to make choices on behalf of people who didn't choose to have him there.

That being the case:

- Who is Nathan accountable to?
- Does he have the right to wage war on people with abilities?
- Do his actions actually represent the America he lives in and "serves" or are they his alone?