From: alt@iquest.net (Al Thompson)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 09:43:00 PST
To: Charles Bell <quester@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: "bad" government
Message-ID: <m0rZj0d-000E8pC@dorite.use.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> If strong government resulted in liberty and freedom, then the
>> most intrusive, all-encompassing governments would result in 
>> its citizens having the most liberty.  Is this the case?  I would
>> look at the (former) Soviet Union, Iran, Cuba, East Germany, etc., 
>> for your answer.

>Unrestricted individual freedom leads to unrestricted freedom of 
>`private' corporations.  Private corporations uncurbed by society's law are 
>autarkies: internally totalitarian, externally predatory, as amoral as 
>amoebas.
>
>Is this the shape of the future you seek?
  
'Tis better to err on the side of liberty.
 
To suggest otherwise would indicate that the origin and true meaning of 
"rights" or "liberty" is not understood.  
 
You can NOT restrict someone's rights simply because they MIGHT harm another 
(prior restraint).  If they do cause actual harm to someone, they should be 
brought to justice.  To place restrictions on someone based on the 
possibility that may may cause harm introduces restrictions based solely on 
the authorities' opinions (political philosophy, religion, race, etc).
 
That that the shape of the future YOU seek?
************************************************************
*           Just your basic signature block                *
*                                                          *
*  Al Thompson                                             *
*  Fidonet 1:231/110                                       *
*  alt@iquest.net                                          *
************************************************************