Outlaws as Champions of Liberty
By William Henry Smith
ONCE in England the highway robber was a sort of popular hero, and the sentiment in his favor was so strong that it was difficult for the king's officers to enforce the laws. Did this prove that the highways should have been given over to his activities, that he should have been "regulated"? Or did it prove that the people needed to be educated to a point where they would see that it was to their interests to support just laws? The case is somewhat similar to that of the liquor traffic at present. Those robbers stood for the ideals of personal liberty against the excessive oppressions of the times, thus enlisting the sympathy of a people who yearned to realize these ideals in an orderly way. Yet they directly encroached on liberty, and made it unsafe to go alone, unarmed, or in the dark. The liquor trade imposes the same inconveniences through fostering alcoholism and the general offensiveness and criminality which accompany it. The highwayman was often very generous in giving to the poor, and pretended to be their friend. Yet his depredations increased the risk of business, greatly hindering the general prosperity of all classes. The sponsors of liquor claim it as a friend to the worker; yet it lowers his efficiency and increases accidents, thus hindering business and decreasing means of happiness. The deceitfulness of the narcotic permits this to be done without exciting much malice in any quarter. That is the only difference. Prohibiting the sale of intoxicants will increase both wealth and personal liberty in the long run, just as did the prohibition of organized outlaws. W. H. S.