These are, however, no more than the last line of defence which can only take action in exceptional cases and in a suppletive role. In truth, the potential criminal is he who does not discipline himself in accordance with the ethical parameters which he may have assumed. And if the majority of the citizens in a society have not made their ethical choice, there will neither be public force nor judicial action which will avail them, since, it should be understood, we cannot disregard the possibility of they being, in this situation, contaminated themselves. All that remains, so as not to result in chaos, will be a Mafiosi neo-feudalism cynically disguised, with more or less skill, by the appearance of a Liberal State. Yet, we have to admit, the task is not an easy one.
Many doctrinairian obstacles render it difficult.
A unilateral sociologism which diminishes and almost annuls in behaviour, the individual creative initiatives, thus minimising the importance of personal ethical education. A psychological vision of Freudian inspiration which over-valorises the subconscious instances of the personality, comprehending that these should not be repressed, but liberated and assumed so that each person can achieve happiness and maturity. The first obstacle is in some form reinforced by the very circumstance of schools being collective entities which tend to impose their own standards attending only to the fact of their predominance. And, more serious, is that this same sociological factitiousness is rendered helpless when confronted with the fact of the emergence of violent gangs which dispute effective power in the classrooms and corridors. Nevertheless, for this to be possible, it is necessary that a much generalised equivoque be destroyed, that of understanding that a Liberal State, not being Totalitarian, should never use its authority inexorably, a prohibition which is considered extendible to the holders of a lesser social authority.