By Charles H. Sawders
In a free society potential behavior cannot be punished. To the extent that it is, is the measure of the absence of liberty.
Unacceptable behavior proscribed by law, may be punished. But in a free society what one might, maybe, could, possibly, perhaps, be able to do is not grounds for punishment or truncation of rights. Only after the unacceptable behavior has occurred can a free society protect itself by punishing the actor, both as retribution and deterrence. Any punishment or restriction prior is a veto of liberty.
Liberty is risky. We must rely on the good natures of our fellow citizens to a large extent. Though risky, it has proven throughout history to be much safer than entrusting ourselves to the good natures of governments.
Those unwilling to risk liberty can always find a master. If that be their desire, I will not strive to prevent such, so long as they seek subservience and servitude on a personal level. They are not empowered to seek either, nor a master, for me. When they venture to do so they have become my enemy. An enemy who will not be tolerated. An enemy who will be counted among the forces of evil by free men everywhere.
Also by Charles H. Sawders:
The Downsides of Liberty
If people who did break laws that are violent criminals paid the price with their lives being hung in public. I'm sure our crime rates would be much lower. The big problem with doing something like that is government would be smaller.
ReplyDeletePictures and horses are hung. People are hanged. But since your last sentiment on the subject is so accurate, what do I know? I think a smaller government might be a blessing.
ReplyDelete