You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The ATF vs. The First Amendment

in FreeSpeech2 years ago (edited)

I would argue that every instance of government overstepping its alleged bounds is one more proof of its illegitimacy.

In order for "everyone" to see it, i.e. also those people who have so far clung to the legitimacy of the current models of governments, to feel cheated, it has to become much clearer.

Ultimately, awakening means that one perceives one's world view as destroyed in a total way. This destruction makes itself felt in the restrictive and increasingly oppressive actions that individuals only grasp when they themselves are affected. That is, when the law-abiding, without being aware of any guilt, suddenly find themselves exposed to a situation that they would not have thought possible.

HIVE is also a tool we can use to undermine any efforts to quash "illegal ideas."

True. It takes part in the hide and seek game. If a sphere is small enough it won't attract attention. Once it is noticed as relevant it will face opposition. So that is why Hive is not something for the masses, if you ask me.

However, people who do not want to be free, but rather cared for, will not interpret the cuts in their freedom as such, because they mistakenly believe that the people in the governments are trying to protect them. It is almost impossible to convince anyone that the state with its apparatuses can neither care for nor protect the individual. The sooner one understands this, the sooner one can say goodbye to the desire that a government should act in the interest of the individual.

Nevertheless, there is nothing in the matter that speaks against "governing". Always where the separation of powers still functions and, for example, judicial decisions have called state power into question or delegitimised it, or, where state power acted against even bigger powers. Such decisions must refrain from any malice or gloating, they must be made on the basis of rationality and expertise, in other words, have actors who manage not to polarise or ignore the friend-foe schema.

In order for it to become much clearer, the state power must appear even more direct, even more restrictive, even more totalitarian than it already does at present. As long as a people feels protected even under tightened conditions, it will follow the course of such restrictions until it can no longer do so. Only then will the people as a whole see that obedience has been of no use to them.

Disobedience, however, I personally do not interpret solely as provocative and obvious rebellion, but rather as indifference, in which the one who has a firm intention is unable to recognise whether I am a friend or an enemy. He will therefore seek out those for whom this problem of differentiation does not arise.

In the general Twitter and social media clamour, however, it has become quite easy to make a noose out of someone's opinion, because anything you say can be used against you.

Therefore, for conveying or spreading messages under difficult conditions, humour of a universal nature helps, subtle messages that include a wink, exhilarating stories that inspire rather than agitate.

Following this thought, I would say that indifference is a powerful thing because it is inherent in every human being and because individuals often do not know themselves as well as they think they do, participate in the fabric of the whole and in this way, through their indifference, help freedom to carry more weight, precisely because it cannot be directly observed or recognised. Such circumvention of concrete attitudes is possible and feasible as long as one is not confronted with a personal decision. Since this is an extreme case that rarely arises in everyday life, what people "really" think and feel basically remains hidden from us. I see this as positive and also playing into the hands of chance.

What exactly does "the exaggeration of one's own importance in the world" mean?

It's the conviction to own a concrete unchanging attitude, to have morals on ones side, to be right. To give oneself a label, on which one wants to ride on principles. While I would say, that doubt and error can be excellent servants for giving myself the chance to reflect and learn.