Free to fail: Upside and Consequences

Everybody wants freedom. Freedom of speech, movement, choice. Freedom to have the opportunity to succeed. But, when it comes to failure, we want to be protected. If people say what we don't like, we want a safe zone, if people arrive we don't like, we want borders, if we choose poorly, we want support. When it comes to our freedom, we want it when there is upside for us but do not want to experience the downside.

I want it all, I don't want to pay

Many here at Steemit for example want a range of freedoms so they can say and do what they want. When it comes to cryptocurrencies for example, the freedom to do what they will without government intervention and regulation so they can take advantage of the situation and profit. What happens if they calculate incorrectly, the market collapses, they buy into scam coins and get burned? Will they wear the responsibility of failure or will they turn to their government for support to survive?

Should the governments support those who have acted freely? This is far from my wheelhouse area but I also want the freedom to choose what I do and how I use what I have but, I am also an advocate for responsibility of action. When I speak freely, I do not expect protection from the words of others, if I act poorly, I accept the consequences and if I choose badly, I do not assume I am entitled to support.

I am not saying that I will refuse help if it arrives in the advent of my failing but, in a free market, I understand I am entitled to nothing but the ability to act. The problems arise when people want protection within a free system as what these people do is impose limitations on others so that they can enjoy their freedoms. In other words, oppress the freedoms of some, to maximise their chances of success.

Rights without oppression

Imagine living alone on an island though where it is just you and the elements. What is right and wrong? This is not the way humans work in a social environment where everyone has a slightly different set of desires they are looking to satisfy however. The social fabric is woven by the rules of the group and in order to benefit from the group, one must wear some of the cloth.

Rules of humanity are always oppressive by definition as they limit possibility of individuals. The rules of nature look to maximise options, the rules of men are always less than that point. The restrict the freedom of nature in some way. Even the most basic of rules such as do not kill are limiting freedoms of nature as nature allows the act of killing in its rule set.

We actually live in a world already where killing is allowed yet in most places, it is punished by the rules of the group. The rule is one of the control mechanisms. And, even in the societies that punish murder, killing itself through other means is accepted as necessary. Humans contradict themselves a lot.

Illusive security

I do not think many of us want to live in a world where people are free to do whatever they want even if we are free to retaliate based on their actions. It would be a return to dark times indeed and would likely devolve us hundreds of generations.

But, this means that we are willing to accept protection and regulation across a vast number of areas so that we can walk the streets and feel somewhat secure. But, this security is an illusion for the rule set does not apply to all equally as some choose not to comply to the rules. Murders still exist even though murder is illegal.

Protection from failure or the failure of others is something we crave. If we manage to get out of a pyramid scheme at the top before it collapses, do we share our gains with those who were burned at the bottom? But if we were at the bottom, we want protection. If we buy into a scam, we want an authority to remunerate us and punish the scammer but we want ourselves to pay no cost.

As the investment philosophy says 'Never invest what you aren't willing to lose' and the reasoning is sound but doesn't just apply to the markets. There are many people fighting very hard for independence and freedoms but, are they willing to lose protection and security of mind? From the looks of things, I would suggest they are not.

Protect me 4 protect you

As I often reiterate for where I write and think, this is not my speciality but it is an area that we must navigate in a world that is increasingly fragmenting in the rules people are willing to live by. There are so many 'fights for freedoms' but the same people are also 'fighting for protection', often in the same breath.

Protection is not a natural right, it is a human rule. Nature and the universe does not protect you, me or anything else from negative experiences as those experiences are possible. What it does do however is give us the capacity to understand and choose to protect each other. What this means though is that in order to be protected, we must also be protectors. The upside is ours, as are the consequences of action.

I would be interested to hear people's thoughts and experiences on freedoms and lack thereof if they have thought about this a little. There are a lot things to consider in this area yet most think fast and only on the upside for themselves.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]