The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. […] Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.
Justice Louis Brandeis, Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
The world is going to hell and everyone’s watching cat videos.
John Kobylt, KFI News Radio
It is in the interest of every individual to exist in a society that recognizes the right to defend oneself in a fair trial.
The next time you say, “I have a right,” ask: “Who has the duty?” If there is anyone who has a duty to do anything except refrain from interfering with you, ask: “On what grounds do I claim a right to subordinate that person’s will to mine?”
Charles W. Baird
Professor of Economics Emeritus
California State University at East Bay
I loved you conditionally. You loved him unconditionally. I stopped loving you.
Start with the concept of free will, that individuals have the power to make their own choices. Then acknowledge the fact that individuals do not always have the power to make all their choices. A person, given the choice, would surely choose to be happy and free over being unhappy and fated. But since individuals are not always happy and free, it is apparent that they do not always have a choice in the matter, ie do not always have free will. Here, Volitionism recognizes this fact and reasserts free will by addressing the factor preventing the individual from choosing happiness and freedom. By CHOOSING to address the factor limiting freedom.
Example 1: An individual is depressed. It is unlikely that the individual chooses to be depressed, because, given the choice, he would be happy. So he must have no choice in the matter. But, he can find out what is making him depressed, like maybe a lack of B vitamins, and address it. In this way, he ultimately does have the power to be happy.
As long as you exist in this world, you are subject to the demands of this world.