|
the very freedom that he provides
This part of Jack Nicolas speech shows a flaw.
He made the assumption that he knew what provided freedom, not the larger group of society itself. He believed he was above the law because his ideas were right, ignoring the thoughts of society that had different views, and how society, from those views, made laws to protect the character of a people, and in doing that protect the freedom of a people.
His very statement is both contradictory and exactly correct. It is contradictory in that he makes the assumption of no laws for him, because of his self appointed role as knowing whats best. Which removes freedom for anyone else since he claims to be able to violate other peoples freedoms to achieve what he thinks needs to be done.
And in doing that he advocates for complete freedom or anarchy where no laws matter.
So he creates complete freedom for himself, and takes freedom away from those he thinks he protects by the notion of he knows best.
Most people believe in limitations to freedom based on a social contract of compassion and justice, although some freedom is given up, like the freedom to break any law, under a social contract the knowledge of many people, in times without fear, are used to create laws to protect us from our bad self during times of fear.
It is a normal thing though... have you ever seen a fire engine driving down the road, and for an instant you worry if your house might be on fire? Then you see it turn and you are relieved. But someones house is on fire, or someone is hurt, yet you are relieved it is not you. This is a common thing of more empathy for self and family then for strangers. And because of this people do not think on social contract laws because compared to anarchy they seem to protect the stranger more then themselves. But in truth the social contract creates a system that is just and in that it creates one that is sustainable and protects a person from others also applying 'no laws' to them.
|