After the revolution, it might very well remain necessary to place people where they could not do harm to others. But the one under restraint should be cut off from the rest of society as little as possible.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Usually, in any revolution people are focused on who wants to have the most power. But the most important thing is the laws that are written during that time.
I do think there is this danger that our society has made its peace with decline. I'd like to jolt them out of their complacency a little bit.
When you do something in a nonviolent way, people will die and there will be casualties. But you're taking a different point of view that has a power.
A free and rooted society ought to consist of a web of moral obligations. We have the right to ignore them, but we ought to be actually obliged not to let other people starve or to let them lapse into destitution.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
If you want to plan a revolution, you never do it in public - the authorities show up and arrest everyone.
Freedom without virtue isn't freedom - it will eventually destroy a society.
The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.