To reach this
goal, the natural freedom of the individual must be limited in many
ways, it is true; and if this were absolutely the only consideration
and intention regarding them, it would be well to restrict this
liberty as closely as possible, in order to bring all their movements
under one uniform rule, and to keep them under constant supervision.
Granted that such severity be necessary, it could at least do no harm
for this single end; only the higher concept of the human race and of
the nations widens this limited view. Even in the manifestations
of external life freedom is the soil in which the higher culture
germinates; a legislation which keeps this later aim in view will give
the broadest possible scope to freedom, even at the risk that a less
degree of uniform quiet and calm may result, and that government may
become a little more difficult and laborious.
To elucidate this by an example--it has been known to happen that
nations have been told to their faces that they did not require as
much freedom as many other nations do. This statement might, indeed,
be dictated by forbearance and a desire to palliate, the true meaning
being that they were utterly unable to endure so great freedom and
that only a high degree of rigidity could prevent them from destroying
one another. If, however, the words are taken as they are spoken,
they are true under the presupposition that such a nation is entirely
incapable of the natural life and of the impulse toward it.
Pages:
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121