theres a line between advice and command. so while we take financial advice from a moneylender, we simply execute commands as enforced by law, the key difference being that for the latter, there is no opt-out. and when looking at the motives of both types instruction coming from a figure of authority, a clear distinction is made that we are given options to improve our lives, but for decisions that could/would degrade the lives of others, free will is taken away.
it is sufficiently clear here for me to conclude that since a governing body is in the business of being in everyone else's business, that they only pass and enforce law that protects people from each other--not themselves. a nanny state to me, is an absurd concept which muddies with arbitrariness the clear waters of what would be a transparent set of civil regulations.
it becomes extremely problematic when a government overreaches itself and tries to lay cultural, financial, social, etc frameworks and then coerce the inhabitants to conform. in such a way, the governing body has overstepped its boundary of sovereign security handling, into the realm of domestic dollhouse mishandling. where the word democracy remains in the name of any particular government, it is no longer in the spirit of the name itself when such a government masterminds decisions for the electorate when instead they should merely be the executors of popularly voted constitutions.
the following is true: people dont really care for much of politics, except for the fact that they want to be able to do what they want to do, what they dream of doing, be it making a name, making a living, or making a family. so when the time comes they collectively realise (by education or advances in comms tech) they have been denied this right, entire regimes collapse overnight.
all because personal freedom was not a priority, and the government wasnt doing the job it was supposed to be doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment