Meet us on:
Welcome to Read Print! Sign in with
or
to get started!
 
Entire Site
    Try our fun game

    Dueling book covers…may the best design win!

    Random Quote
    "What's the use of worrying? It never was worthwhile."
     

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Follow us on Twitter

    Never miss a good book again! Follow Read Print on Twitter

    Concerning Freedoms - Page 2

    • Rate it:
    Launch Reading Mode Next Page
    Page 2 of 21
    Previous Page
    liberty, and a
    general permission may diminish it. It does not follow, as these
    people would have us believe, that a man is more free where there is
    least law and more restricted where there is most law. A socialism
    or a communism is not necessarily a slavery, and there is no freedom
    under Anarchy. Consider how much liberty we gain by the loss of the
    common liberty to kill. Thereby one may go to and fro in all the
    ordered parts of the earth, unencumbered by arms or armour, free of
    the fear of playful poison, whimsical barbers, or hotel trap-doors.
    Indeed, it means freedom from a thousand fears and precautions.
    Suppose there existed even the limited freedom to kill in
    vendetta, and think what would happen in our suburbs. Consider the
    inconvenience of two households in a modern suburb estranged and
    provided with modern weapons of precision, the inconvenience not
    only to each other, but to the neutral pedestrian, the practical
    loss of freedoms all about them. The butcher, if he came at all,
    would have to come round in an armoured cart....

    It follows, therefore, in a modern Utopia, which finds the
    final hope of the world in the evolving interplay of unique
    individualities, that the State will have effectually chipped away
    just all those spendthrift liberties that waste liberty, and not
    one liberty more, and so have attained the maximum general freedom.

    There are two distinct and contrasting methods of limiting liberty;
    the first is Prohibition, "thou shalt not," and the second Command,
    "thou shalt." There is, however, a sort of prohibition that takes
    the form of a conditional command, and this one needs to bear in
    mind. It says if you do so-and-so, you must also do so-and-so; if,
    for example, you go to sea with men you employ, you must go in a
    seaworthy vessel. But the pure command is unconditional; it says,
    whatever you have done or are doing or want to do, you are to
    do this, as when the social system, working through the base
    necessities of base parents and bad laws, sends a child of thirteen
    into a factory. Prohibition takes one definite thing from the
    indefinite liberty of a man, but it still leaves him an unbounded
    choice of actions. He remains free, and you have merely taken a
    bucketful from the sea of his freedom. But compulsion destroys
    freedom altogether. In this Utopia of ours there may be many
    prohibitions, but no indirect compulsions--if one may so contrive
    it--and few or no commands. As far as I see it now, in this present

    discussion, I think, indeed, there should be no positive compulsions
    at all in Utopia, at any rate for the adult Utopian--unless they
    fall upon him as penalties incurred.

    --

    Section 2.

    What prohibitions should we be
    Next Page
    Page 2 of 21
    Previous Page
    If you're writing a H.G. Wells essay and need some advice, post your H.G. Wells essay question on our Facebook page where fellow bookworms are always glad to help!

    Top 5 Authors

    Top 5 Books

    Book Status
    Finished
    Want to read
    Abandoned

    Are you sure you want to leave this group?