>The strongest man is never strong enough to be always master, unless he transforms his power into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest—a right in appearance assumed in irony, and in reality established in principle. But will this term ever be explained to us? Force is a physical power; I do not see what morality can result from its effects. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; it is at most an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?
>if might makes right, the effect changes with the cause, and any force that can overcome the first can claim its rights. As soon as men can disobey with impunity, they can do so legitimately; and since the strongest is always in the right, it makes sense to act in such a way as to be the strongest. But what kind of right perishes when might disappears? If one is compelled to obey by force, there is no need to obey from duty; and if one is no longer forced to obey, obligation is at an end. We see, then, that this word right adds nothing to force; here it means nothing at all.
>Let us agree, then, that might does not make right, and that we are bound
to obey none but lawful authorities.

Is this the greatest refutation of ''might makes right''?