As discussed in my previous posts, I see a few "restrictions" within the freedom movement(s). In this post, I show how "restriction" as true and why someone would want to do it themselves. #definitionsoffreedom
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees.
An evil system never deserves such allegiance.
Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.
A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
Interesting. Well let's see how he helps us understand a peaceful revolution.
A lot of people have an issue with "restricting their lives" by changing a detrimental lifestyle. They have comfort in convince, pleasure, or conformity and do not feel like putting in the extra effort into making a better world.
"But I'll miss the taste of meat"
"What about going out to restaurants"
"I need insert proprietary software"
"But what about the roads?"
I like Julia Tourianski's approach.
If we add these things to a world, what would it sound like to someone like Gandhi?
In my approach, I believe a good activism doesn’t support what they consider evil. I see a variety of avenues to practices this, as explain in previous videos. If you don’t like GMOs, stop buying them, if you don’t like animal cruelty, stop eating meat, if you don’t like the NSA spying on you, stop using Skype, etc.
Good activism doesn't take part of the evil.
Activism implies a sense of "doing" where I see "de-activism" as not taking part in evil. I believe this as the more effective and an approach that "updates" rather than "restarts" society.
Taking advice from Gandhi, let us stop assisting an evil system.
Every day I try to live closer and closer to my higher-ideals of life. So I find it enviable that one day I will sustainability live in a tax-free house and go online on my free software/hardware computer to buy non-gmo organic vegan food with crypto-currencey. Although this seems like a dream to some, I believe if I tried hard enough, perhaps I could do that today.
I do not think the neurotic protests and vandalism has a positive impact on any movement. When a movement has root in the non-aggression principle I believe it has to stay there. I suggest saving your time and "being the change you want to see in the world" (again Gandhi).
So, I think to myself every so often, If I have achieved all of these principles, now what??? Not enough people ask this questions. I fear that they don’t recognize this for two reason:
Ah. #2 scares me just as much as I think it will scare my fellow millennial. But that’s what peace time has to offer for us, right? I see too many people put their identity into this stuff, and have “no life” outside of it. Some find it necessary, and I do too, but my approach has a more individualistic attitude to it.
Only once you live by your principles successfully, then you can show others the possibility of it. Say you talk to a man who knows nothing about non-aggression-principled movements, and you tell them about how they work. He says “that would never work, how would someone live that way. They probably live like a hermit in the woods eating dandelions.” Now you can calmly respond to this person saying “No sir, I own land and buy healthy non-gmo organic vegan with crypto-currency with free software."
By showing people the simplistic of the non-aggression principle, a.k.a. “just stop,” then I feel that more people would attract to the idea of why this stuff can have such a large effect. I don’t see it as a “radical” change because I believe ANYONE can abstain from these evils.
It's All About Love, So let's prove it.
