Hans has previously written about Thomas Jefferson’s concept of rightful liberty:
“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
Hans also asserted the following:
Jefferson’s’ definition should be easily embraced as the compelling vision, the goal, the desired end-state for participants in the “liberty movement”. Yet it is not.
Now consider this in a different perspective: let’s apply this to the current controversy for Prism. Mr. Snowden stated “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things“. I also do not want to live in a nation where law is often but the tyrant’s will. Based on the statements from our leaders in Washington, DC, it is now obvious that most of them support the will of the tyrant. I also do not understand why this is not the foundation of the liberty movement.
I suggest we use this as a means to delineate patriots from domestic enemies. And based on what I see, Washington, DC is a brood of vipers with very few exceptions.