“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err.”

Who determines what an error is? The majority? If life is only "what works", who is to determine what worked for whom? Is the majority the only determining factor? When a lion eats its prey, which was in error? How would the animal kingdom, as a majority, determine the matter? There is no right and wrong in this matter, only instinct. But does instinct have anything to say about it? Instinct is simply what nature has produced, by accident, through evolution and natural selection, for an animal to promote itself. If I kill someone, there isn't any "right or wrong", is there? That is, if it "works" for me? Isn't that just the next step in my evolutionary chain-- the chain of natural selection, survival of the fittest? Certain homo-sapiens set up some rules of conduct (laws) that homo-sapiens accept, but this doesn't change the course of natural selection (excluding the butter-fly effect, =). Would that be in my freedom to "error" in such a case, to kill someone? Oh, wait, then we're right back to the business of determining what an error is.

What a great quote to end the year on, unless the editor will be sending more over the weekend. Freedom without the right to make an honest mistake is not Freedom - bad behavior knowingly is another thing. It all boils down to your own interpretation of to err - if it can be proved that you killed without knowing in your heart that you are taking life from another, regardless of it being right or wrong, then you may be innocent, but that knowing in your heart is what makes the difference - then you are not judged by others but by your Self and it's there where you loose your freedom. WISHING YOU ALL A HAPPY NEW YEAR

What a great quote to end the year on, unless the editor will be sending more over the weekend. Freedom without the right to make an honest mistake is not Freedom - bad behavior knowingly is another thing. It all boils down to your own interpretation of to err - if it can be proved that you killed without knowing in your heart that you are taking life from another, regardless of it being right or wrong, then you may be innocent, but that knowing in your heart is what makes the difference - then you are not judged by others but by your Self and it's there where you loose your freedom. WISHING YOU ALL A HAPPY NEW YEAR

Freedom must have a finite definition before the quote can be considered (relatively speaking of course) ;-) I might add to, or change the quote's concept a bit by saying there is no freedom without the non-criminalized ability to err (my rights end where your nose begins).

The concept is a truism as a pedagological argument, whether it is freedom you are talking about or any other set of opposing precepts. It has to do with whether black could exist if white did not, the presence and absence of something is predicated in order to know the essence of anything-hot cold-life death-good evil. Remember that Gandhi was a barrister, trained in the traditions of logical argument at Oxford.

The premise behind the quote is based on authoritarian control whereby the plethora of laws from the Crown is meant to reduce all 'subjects' to command for 'their own good'. The argument against such systems is that it is better for people to make their own mistakes and learn from them than to have someone in authority dispensing 'justice' in accordance with the will of the Crown even when contrary to the 'rights of man'.

This is a great libertarian quote. One is not truly free unless one has the freedom to make mistakes and has to live with the consequences.