Hitler is one of the most evil, if not the most evil man in history. His ideas of genocide and leadership were well thought out but devastating to the entire world. Hitler is an excellent example of an enemy of liberty. Enemies of liberty do not begin by committing atrocities; they begin by developing a mindset throughout society that includes taking away people’s liberties. To do this they speak out and feed on the weak minded or people who feel betrayed by society to gain power and backing from like minded people. Once this power is gained they use it to restrict or eliminate other people’s liberties to benefit their own interests.
The criteria to be an enemy of liberty is fairly broad in that the goal is to obtain power by limiting and controlling other people’s power. There are different degrees of enemies beginning with a small group talking about restricting liberties all the way up to gaining the power to take them away. The question now becomes when should there be intervention and who should be allowed to decide this. It is my opinion that as soon as action is taken by a group to restrict someone else’s liberties, it is punishable. Speaking about restricting other people’s freedoms is worthy of being questioned but never punished because they are exercising their liberty of opinion. Assuming, however, that there are threats to the liberties of society, what should be done to stop them? Society needs to keep a balance between allowing liberties but also taking away some freedoms when other’s liberties are at stake.
The Term Paper on People Power Civil Society
Like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke discusses the idea of the commonwealth, or as he more frequently titles it political or civil society. Locke believes that man is born with a title to perfect freedom. This concept of freedom is a power given by the law of Nature to man for the preservation of, "his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men" ( ...
There must be a clear line drawn between exercising personal liberty, and taking away another’s freedom. I believe that spoken opinions, no matter how objectionable, do not breach other’s liberties. When actions that affect others freedoms are taken, then the line of legitimate exercise of liberty has been crossed. Society must then limit the liberties of the persons assaulting other’s freedoms. Once it is decided that the liberties of one person should be taken away, it can easily lead to restrictions on many others, causing a loss of liberty for the whole society. On the other hand, failing to take away the liberty of enemies of liberty can allow terrible atrocities, as history as shown.
If the balance between liberty and the protection of all people in the society is tipped in either direction someone’s liberties will be assaulted and the idea of liberty will be corrupted. It is difficult to conclude how this balance can best be accomplished, but a system of checks and balances seems to do well in managing people who feel they can take away the rights of others. This system also does fairly well in upholding the rights of everyone else who does not abuse them. When someone like Hitler gains power, he does so by using the dissatisfaction people feel towards society to fuel their support for him. He makes promises to right the wrongs society has dealt them. In order to prevent enemies of liberty from gaining power, society should try to help people feel that they have legitimate ways to have power over their lives, instead of following a leader like Hitler.
Societies should also insure that people have equal economic opportunities, which could prevent the blaming of other groups of people for their disadvantages. Preventing people like Hitler from gaining power is the best way to ensure liberty for everyone else.
