My preference is for freedom because I feel I am a trustworthy human being and therefore am not a safety risk. I do not need to be controlled, nor do most others. I like to think most others are trustworthy, despite the indoctrination videos they’ve made me watch over the years at various retail positions to the effect that most people are not at all honest and would just as soon rob you as fail to hold the door for you as you both enter a building.
If it becomes a question of my safety versus my freedom, I’ll choose freedom every time. If my safety is in question, I want the freedom to defend myself if need be. I want the freedom to decide what is a threat and what is not. I want the freedom to defend myself from those who consider themselves my defenders (ie the government). I want to know that I am responsible for my safety, not some anonymous hive-like entity that has no idea what my hopes and dreams are. I want, and in the act of wanting, negate the necessity of securing my safety because the act and ability to want is a freedom the quest for safety would destroy.
Living in society and agreeing to its rules is an expression of freedom and accepting the consequences if I choose to disobey those rules is an aspect of freedom that I choose to accept. Freedom is the act of taking responsibility for one’s own actions. Whereas if I chose safety, I would be making others responsible for my actions and the enforcement of the rules that create my safe environment. Choosing freedom, I acknowledge that there is risk in my environment, risk that I accept as part of my existence.
In the work beyond idealist debate, freedom and safety are polar opposites. No one exists in a perfect state of either. As soon as you choose or are forced to interact with others, any illusion of freedom or safety is dispelled. By choosing to be a part of society, we give up some of our personal freedoms, agreeing to be guided by the rules of that society. But we do maintain our freedom, even when it seems we have none, in so far as we are willing to accept the consequences of disagreeing. At any time we can walk away from the rules of society, figuratively and literally. We can break laws, and be punished if caught, or we can emigrate to other lands and choose to be governed by their laws. Or we can simply choose to break the unwritten laws of societal norms and be considered outcast for it, as with people who choose a different norm of sexuality or religion.
In the end, we have as much freedom as we are willing to acknowledge and safety is only an illusion created by unwritten agreement. From infancy, we are indoctrinated into the cult of normalcy. Those who chose to stray will either be ostracized or their ideas will be adopted by the majority if they are found worthy. Everyone has the ability and freedom to change their minds.
If it becomes a question of my safety versus my freedom, I’ll choose freedom every time. If my safety is in question, I want the freedom to defend myself if need be. I want the freedom to decide what is a threat and what is not. I want the freedom to defend myself from those who consider themselves my defenders (ie the government). I want to know that I am responsible for my safety, not some anonymous hive-like entity that has no idea what my hopes and dreams are. I want, and in the act of wanting, negate the necessity of securing my safety because the act and ability to want is a freedom the quest for safety would destroy.
Living in society and agreeing to its rules is an expression of freedom and accepting the consequences if I choose to disobey those rules is an aspect of freedom that I choose to accept. Freedom is the act of taking responsibility for one’s own actions. Whereas if I chose safety, I would be making others responsible for my actions and the enforcement of the rules that create my safe environment. Choosing freedom, I acknowledge that there is risk in my environment, risk that I accept as part of my existence.
In the work beyond idealist debate, freedom and safety are polar opposites. No one exists in a perfect state of either. As soon as you choose or are forced to interact with others, any illusion of freedom or safety is dispelled. By choosing to be a part of society, we give up some of our personal freedoms, agreeing to be guided by the rules of that society. But we do maintain our freedom, even when it seems we have none, in so far as we are willing to accept the consequences of disagreeing. At any time we can walk away from the rules of society, figuratively and literally. We can break laws, and be punished if caught, or we can emigrate to other lands and choose to be governed by their laws. Or we can simply choose to break the unwritten laws of societal norms and be considered outcast for it, as with people who choose a different norm of sexuality or religion.
In the end, we have as much freedom as we are willing to acknowledge and safety is only an illusion created by unwritten agreement. From infancy, we are indoctrinated into the cult of normalcy. Those who chose to stray will either be ostracized or their ideas will be adopted by the majority if they are found worthy. Everyone has the ability and freedom to change their minds.
March 14
The Ghanaian New Year celebration begins today. The first eleven days are devoted to a series purposeful dances designed to drive away the evil spirits of the dead, bring luck, and ensure a good harvest, among other things. On the 12th day, spirit shrines are washed clean of the old year and bad memories. On the thirteenth day, which falls on the day after the spring equinox, the New Year is greeted.
The Roman festival of Verturius Mamurius celebrates the art of armor making.
The Roman festival of Verturius Mamurius celebrates the art of armor making.
Recent Comments