Hive is a space like any other, which, like any other, is not free of control.

To portray it otherwise would be to fail to recognise the reality in which there are in fact no spheres that are beyond any control.

Accordingly, there are limits to free speech and free action everywhere. Neither, therefore, is there a natural right, but what there is is a spontaneous situation in which the individual allows himself to obey himself. "Right" and "nature" are mutually exclusive.

Where "law" is explicitly formulated, it challenges contradiction and therefore reflects the contradictory nature of all law. There is such a thing as an implicit, unspoken order, but where it wants to be expressed and explicitly lived out, it becomes a permanent topic, an endless debating about states of affairs that one desires to fix ("fixate"), and must therefore be described as fruitless. It is therefore not a natural right, but a natural ability, of which I can decide whether I want to make use of it or not.

Those who want to arm themselves do not need to invoke a right, since this right can always be contested. Those who seek to defend themselves with a weapon can do so and will experience one or another consequence as a result. Dying, for example, would be one. But someone who wants to wield a weapon, but is not prepared to die in the act, might ask himself why not? In the same way, one can ask oneself whether one is willing to kill another.

As long as I do not have an addressee who has actively violated my freedom - that is, there is no act of violation of my physical integrity and my social affiliation - I cannot find anyone to "do something against". I can only do so in the very concrete case where I am accused of a violation of some legal provision and charged with having been insubordinate. On the other hand, I myself would have to become the accuser of another individual in order to be able to declare a violation of my rights in a lawsuit. And win the result I hope for.
But if I want to spare myself such a thing - since there is always a risk that I will not be successful with an official lawsuit - I consider alternatives. These alternatives are potentially always available as long as I am not directly threatened with life and limb.

"Unfortunately", this case must first occur before I resort to the extreme of self-defence, which means that it is always the worst case that actually occurs that requires my action - then spontaneously.

(non aggressive) Disobedience is therefore, in my eyes, the strongest means against any taking of control by controlling forces. But since disobedience requires a knowledge of what I actually intend to disobey, we do not have a man-to-man fight today, but a fight for "information" (even if there are still military fights on a battlefield).

I think preserving one's dignity and integrity may mean losing everything, even one's life (and not seeing it as being a victim but a victor). Not that many are willing to do that (I myself have my limits).
A more elegant way would probably be to train inner composure to all conceivable and unthinkable life circumstances.

I try to live by the motto that there are problems without solutions.