Such termination may result in temporary or permanent loss of freedom that can consist of punishment from a night in jail or special tax (a fine), to the forfeiture of the offenders life.
However, when there is no real offense, every person on this earth has a right to personal freedom that is unencumbered by society or government.
There are exceptions however. People of society are free to trade certain freedoms in exchange for certain mutual benefits. For example, you trade the freedom to motor through a busy intersection at any time, for the fair and consistant control of traffic with a signal light.
The problem comes from not everyone agreeing on how much freedom to trade for how much promised security. I say "promised security," because not even a righteous government can guarantee that someone will not proceed through the intersection on a red light.
Unfortunately, people in government tend to exaggerate their prowess at controling others and make claims of providing "security" at levels that only the gods could control.
On the far left are those who believe as much freedom be given up as is "necessary" to obtain the desired security. It is my opinion that honest subscribers to this political philosophy have, more often than not, been grossly infiltrated by those who seek only power for themselves.
On the far right are those who believe no freedom at all be given up for even the least of security. Let everyone play doge-em cars at busy intersections; a free-for-all and let the best person "win."
But don't forget the responsibility part. So much of the "security" we have come to expect from government is totally unnecessary, if not fraudulent. If the population had not been conditioned to rely on the government for "security," civic and religious organizations, in addition to family and friends would be providing the otherwise unobtainable needs of worthy individuals, just as they did in the nineteenth century and before.
Except in the very minimum requirements of social organization, such as the intersection example above, government should quit pretending it can protect the social and economic well-being of the population under its authority.
Because security is consistantly over-stated by its advocates, I suspect a society could successfully use a "minimum loss of freedom" as a guiding rule in formulating the graphical point of a practical "middle of the road."
And this is my conclusion. Government (society) must be contained within the limits of providing security only on the condition of an absolute minimum loss of freedom to the individual member of society. Admittedly, this is subjective. But I believe it could be a result of requiring that no other solution is available from any source, with less loss of freedom.
With this in mind, it should be remembered
that
Individual Freedom Is
Inversely Proportional To The Percent Of Taxation The Individual Is
Forced To Pay.
Include such items as Social Security Tax, State Income Tax, Sales Tax, Vehicle and Driver's Licenses, Building Permits, Real Estate Recording Tax, Business Licenses, Professional Licenses, Real Estate Land and Improvement Tax, Dog Licenses, Gasoline Tax, Business Inventory Tax, Burning Permits, Marriage Licenses, Estate Taxes (this one can be a whopper), and on and on and on and.....
SIGN Janyce's Visitor Log

©
COPYRIGHT 1996; by Janyce (dba Holler for Janyce).
Nothing herein is to be copied or downloaded to a recording device for
purposes of duplication and/or distribution, without
express written permission by the owner.