Aug 9, 2017 · 1 min read
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Laws can be coercive, but to violate a law is a choice we voluntarily make. Laws can become more harmful than the harm they are meant to protect against, which is why jurors have the right to vote not guilty whether the person violated a law, or not.
The point I was trying to make was that using coercion to defeat an idea is more morally objectionable than any idea itself. For someone to have a belief for themselves does no harm to anyone outside of themselves, but for someone else to cause harm to that person simply for having that idea causes harm to someone else. It is therefore more harmful to harm someone for their idea, than for them to have said idea.
Make sense?
