Should public opinions be used to pronounce Politicians as corrupt?
I like to think I despise politicians more than 99.9 percent of the population. Even in my kindest moments, I see them as occasionally well- intentioned souls who are easily corrupted. Most of the time, they are a plague on society.
So you might think I’m in favor of throwing them in prison on the slightest pretext. That’s surely an appealing thought, but one of the main traits of libertarianism is a belief in the rule of law. Arbitrary arrests, trumped-up charges, and unjustified imprisonments should not exist in a civilized society (though I’m ashamed to admit that such things are happening with increasing frequency in Ghana).
It is a good idea to hold politicians accountable for their actions, of course, but isn’t that what elections are for? The bottom line is that politicians are despicable creatures and part of me wants to throw most of them in jail for the things they do to reduce freedom and undermine prosperity, but after-the- fact trials are not right unless real evidence exists of a law actually being broken.
So this is one of those things where I’m conflicted. My emotions lead me one way, but I can’t overcome my belief in the rule of law. I would be a not- guilty vote unless somebody showed evidence of genuine criminal behavior in court and the judge pronounce guilty verdict on whoever is been prosecuted for corruption and its like.
So you might think I’m in favor of throwing them in prison on the slightest pretext. That’s surely an appealing thought, but one of the main traits of libertarianism is a belief in the rule of law. Arbitrary arrests, trumped-up charges, and unjustified imprisonments should not exist in a civilized society (though I’m ashamed to admit that such things are happening with increasing frequency in Ghana).
It is a good idea to hold politicians accountable for their actions, of course, but isn’t that what elections are for? The bottom line is that politicians are despicable creatures and part of me wants to throw most of them in jail for the things they do to reduce freedom and undermine prosperity, but after-the- fact trials are not right unless real evidence exists of a law actually being broken.
So this is one of those things where I’m conflicted. My emotions lead me one way, but I can’t overcome my belief in the rule of law. I would be a not- guilty vote unless somebody showed evidence of genuine criminal behavior in court and the judge pronounce guilty verdict on whoever is been prosecuted for corruption and its like.
Comments
Post a Comment