Freedom of the market is not applicable to society, because it will lead to control and rigid class structure based on the myth of individual freedom.
Indeed, the freedom that social activists strive for is based on the fallacy that freedom from coercion is a viable political outcome. The inherent violence in attempting to achieve such freedom shows that such freedom will always be subject to control by the elites of society.
For the ideal society free of rules will still require a method of social control, lest the alternative — chaos — lead to a feared breakdown of society.
The truth is, society does not need a centralized government to function — Gwangju is a good example of this. In the aftermath of the Park assassination of 1979, Gwangju formed an anarchistic society without central government, which threatened the control by the elites of South Korea of the Korean people.
In contrast, the freedom to create new ways of innovation is truly viable. Anything else is doomed to end in control of the People by the elites. A society that allows such control yet seeks to be free of it will continue to produce automatons, not people.
Ergo, social activism ought to focus on the freedom to be rather than the freedom from coercion which appears to be their current focus. By focusing solely on freedom from coercion, social activism will eventually result in the loss of the freedom their advocates fight for.
For freedom is actually about fulfilling your potential, not freeing oneself from coercion, which actually is a given within family dynamics.
So, yes, I'm all for sitting on your ass in Zen rather than this revolutionary bullshit.
Reference:
Gwangju: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju
Gawngju Democratization Movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Democratization_Movement
No comments:
Post a Comment