The concept of "obedience to the unenforceable" expresses well the need in a free society to balance the rule of law (government) with morality. But is this what William Penn was getting at in his "Preface to the Frame of Government" of 1682 in which he wrote, "... liberty without obedience is confusion and obedience without liberty is slavery." ?
This was excellent, but here is the issue I see constantly: Classical liberalism is constantly being stretched towards the cultural sphere, not on the basis of: 'I don't like this so I need laws against this,' but more on the basis of: 'I need laws here so that I can be free.' And since our contemporary desire to be free seems to have no easily determinable bounds, liberalism is becoming nothing but laws and therefore meaningless as liberalism.
The concept of "obedience to the unenforceable" expresses well the need in a free society to balance the rule of law (government) with morality. But is this what William Penn was getting at in his "Preface to the Frame of Government" of 1682 in which he wrote, "... liberty without obedience is confusion and obedience without liberty is slavery." ?
32:00-34:00 Excellent take on free speech.
Kitab hukum Canonic @Firefox.
This was excellent, but here is the issue I see constantly: Classical liberalism is constantly being stretched towards the cultural sphere, not on the basis of: 'I don't like this so I need laws against this,' but more on the basis of: 'I need laws here so that I can be free.' And since our contemporary desire to be free seems to have no easily determinable bounds, liberalism is becoming nothing but laws and therefore meaningless as liberalism.
First?