Coloring Outside the Lines
The world we live in, is subject to lines, to boundaries; rules, and norms.
Invisible entities setting up restrictions and guidelines, to mold every individual, to conform to those lines and make them as predictable, organized and monitorable as possible.
You, the reader, may think that these are the rantings of a mind submerged in an altered state of consciousness brought on by narcotics/psychedelics/hallucinogenics.
I assure you, that I am as sober as the medical definition of that term allows me to be.
This is not a conspiracy theory in paranoia or delirium, but merely a statement of facts in an attempt to raise some fundamental questions and a great deal of honest doubts.
In the effort to bring about order, in a society that would have otherwise consumed itself through its own innate capriciousness and self-destructive nature; man built governance.
An acceptable surrogate to what might have been religious faith or as a substitute to moral conscience.
Something, that is lacking in the populace today, owing to reasons that are quite inexpressible, through the use of mere words.
We are instructed to confide in it, trust it without hesitation, never to go against it.
And strangely enough, unlike religion; it can, and will, pass judgment, decree punishments and rewards, in life itself.
The governance will do all that is necessary to maintain an overall, amicable and non-hostile society to live for the majority of the people.
But the effort is as pointless as it is conceited.
For here, to state clichés is to speak the truth, and the truth is just one word: Chaos.
This is the one established truth, the one fundamental fact.
Call it entropy or capriciousness or freewill, the reality is, within every restriction being imposed by governance, there is an unspoken degree of exception, that defies the restriction itself.
Now, this brings up the other side of the argument for consideration.
“Isn’t the governance operating to bring about a control over this chaos? Aren’t restrictions and rules being put up to safeguard the people against themselves and the dangers lurking within the community?”
Yes. That is exactly what it is doing.
It is doing everything humanely possible to ensure that the least amount of mutual/self harm is being caused by the section of society that have the tendency or preemptive to do so.
The very question of debate then must be:
What about these restrictions? What are they and what do they impose?
Every legal article/statuette that is in place constitute these restrictions.
Covering every aspect of Human life and its interaction with the tangible and intangible, these rules are our god and our weapons. Capable of being bent, forged or shot at others, to make ‘it’ work for ‘us’.
Sound familiar ?
‘The human condition’, if ever there was a more archaic usage, is a reality.
The very same human condition, often influenced by wealth and power, drives the person, further toward the violation of those restrictions.
Wealth and power that allows its violation in some and the lack of the same that enables its enforcement in the others.
There is therefore, literally a price one can pay.
From movie stars, to dictators, politicians and businessmen, the extent of what the rules allow one to do or not to do, is a function of the wealth and power exertable by that individual.
Ergo, if one was to possess unlimited wealth and power (hypothetically of course) no rule or governance that imposes them, could confine that individual to any lines and that person would be at liberty to exercise his own whims/intentions. Positive or otherwise.
Certainly all men are subject to the laws of governance, but they are mere men nonetheless. It is just a game of weighing the tangible really.
A man’s intentions or shared decisions or opinions may be paid for with wealth/power.
And at the very least, may be nullified or silenced, by payment, or otherwise.
The eyes of the law are not all seeing or all knowing, and its field of vision is ‘restricted’ to say the least, and the violation of its rules are commonplace.
To some the moral precedent takes first slot before the laws of the governance, and in such a person, the need/purpose for those restrictions (as set by the governance) becomes null and void.
What I’m really trying to say hear is, is that no man or group of people can truly have any say on the choices and rights of another, so long as they do not physically or psychologically manifest themselves to harm/impinge upon the comfort or rights of the other. And vice versa.
The liberties of man are just that, a set of can-s and can-nots.
Not imposed by governance, or a god, a prophet or even man himself.
It is every individual’s primary responsibility to himself and his society,
to try and not interact with nature so as to influence it negatively.
For if it were not for this innate moral consciousness, we would cease to be sentient, and become the shells of primitive beings, long since extinct.