I write a lot.
A bit too much, perhaps.
I write SO much, that I sometimes forget what I’m talking about.
If you ask me what I meant about a post I made in May 2017, I probably won’t remember it. Which is why I’m re-posting this thing I wrote in May of 2017.
Its message is so stupidly simplistic that it sounds like I wouldn’t have written it, but at the same time, it was angry!
Now that DOES sound like me.
But who or what was I angry at?
That could be anyone’s guess, but by reading the article, it appeared as though I was annoyed our general inability to give ourselves our “rights”.
Does that make sense?
We’re so busy pointing fingers at “the government”, “the police”, “corporations”, or whoever to provide us with “rights” that we forgot that we don’t need them to do that. So we always have freedom of choice, but not freedom of consequences.
Yet somehow through heated political discourse, we’ve confused “rights” and “consequences”. But I don’t think for one minute that we truly believe that our rights have been taken away, we just foster those beliefs because they lend credibility to the the idea that our political opponents are up to something menacing so we dwell in our own corner of pesecution because we want to be proven RIGHT!
Or something like that.
Just read the damn article.
It’s not difficult, people.
I know in our highly politicized world, we want to believe that our freedoms are being eroded away. It makes us feel good because it enables us to win arguments.
That’s fine. It’s also idiotic.
What’s really stopping you from committing arson and ramming your car through your neighbors house? Think about it.
Is it the law? If you answered yes, then try again. The law can only offer consequence for committing an action, it can’t prevent it. That is, unless the CIA or NSA are tracking your every move. In that case, they might be able to prevent your action, but they can’t remove the intention to action. So keep thinking.
What did you find?
That’s absolutely correct. The only person that can stop you from a disgruntled rampage is yourself. Now, of course fear of the law and consequence might prevent you from committing an action. Yet that fear is entirely generated within you. So again, only you can stop you, unless there’s a literal physical force there to stop you. But, that physical force can only prevent the action. It can’t prevent the will to action.
“Well what about people in prison? Asshole.”
Sure, their freedoms are severely restricted. But it’s the same story. The state can’t prevent the will to escape or take over the prison. The only power at its disposal is the physical force towards prevention. What citizens fail to realize, is that they have the same power at its disposal. The state might have greater power, therefore generating fear WITHIN the heart of the citizen. Which, in turn, might deter any such physical action. But, the will to action or the fear from action is entirely in the hands of the individual.
There are all kinds of crazy scenarios where we can envision the state taking away the will of the individual. Science fiction is loaded with these stories. And what we find is the individual becoming entirely dependent on the state to provide them with ‘rights’…which are just imaginative constructs of the state that aren’t found in nature.
And by the way, I’m not demeaning the idea of ‘rights’ or the power of the state. I find these things necessary evils. However, I appreciate these things for what they’re worth…a product of our collective imagination. I don’t actually believe that there is any metaphysical or supernatural power that validates them.
But what we find in these doomsday science fiction scenarios, and indeed in our very own political environment, is that people are reliant on the state to provide them with their individuality. The state has to provide them with ‘rights’, otherwise they lack any freedoms whatsoever. They actually believe that the state provides a ‘freedom of speech’.
And it’s horseshit. The state doesn’t provide any such freedoms. That’s only a freedom that you can provide yourself. The best that the state can do is provide a set of consequences (or a lack thereof) should that freedom be engaged. Whether or not you heed to those consequences is entirely up to you. The state might outlaw freedom of speech altogether, but all it can do is promote fear of consequences. Until technology is developed that can literally prevent free speech, you do have the power to engage it regardless of consequence.
Again, the state can only promote fear. Whether or not you subscribe to it is entirely in your hands. But once you start arguing from the perspective that only the state can provide freedoms, then you don’t have any freedoms.
We all have the freedom to action. But what none of us have is the freedom of consequence. So please, stop confusing the two.