So we have this thing that’s supposed to happen on the 26th. It has to do with the Internet and how open it is at the moment. The specifics don’t matter at this point. What’s about to happen is the government will begin to start to intervene in how we surf the Internet and choose to look at things. We have been able to do so relatively freely for some time now, and now begins the next step toward becoming China. The vote is happening on Thursday. What does that matter? The vote isn’t a sure thing that it’s going to pass, right?
Wrong. This has support on both sides of the aisle. They have worked together to draft this bill and it’s supposedly one of those “we’ll have to pass it to find out what’s really in it” type things. Those in government don’t even have any idea what’s actually in this bill. That’s the scary part. We could be going full-out censorship after the thing passes, but we don’t even know about it.
There are very few people who do know all that’s in the bill, and they are the ones that we should be watching out for. They are the ones who are orchestrating everything behind the scenes, making sure that nothing looks like it’s actually them so that it can’t be traced directly back to them in the case of some sort of debacle (which will probably ensue if this bill contains some more questionable clauses, which it will) so they can keep their hands clean of the madness and continue doing the things that they do best: spend other people’s money that was taken illegally and dole it out in whatever irresponsible way that they deem most prudent at the moment, using “prudent” loosely of course.
The problem is this: we don’t know what’s going to happen, and we should. If Washington wants to infringe upon our rights, then they can continue to do so because nobody is apparently that pissed off at the moment to stop them. However, they should at least be transparent about it so that we can know what to expect and maybe that won’t piss as many people off as catching us completely by surprise with something that either could or could not be received well, generally. I for one will probably oppose almost everything that’s in this particular piece of legislation, simply because I hate laws and regulations because they usually mean an active government, which is something that I have grown to be wholly against. However, if they are to enact these laws and infringe upon rights and stamp out liberty, the least they could do is not sucker punch us but instead inform us that we are about to be beaten to a pulp (or at least our rights are) and then promptly begin after explaining the situation, so as to get it over with quickly. The State is a bully, and it always has been. We’ve fought oppressive governments from the time of its inception because we have a natural longing to be free from bondage. While “civil” society certainly tends to want some sort of structure to it–which usually contains some sort of government or governmental processes–there is a possibility that we could live without it. What am I ranting about this time, precisely? We have a moral obligation to stand up to oppressive governments. It says so in our own Declaration of Independence. Multiple Enlightenment philosophers that coined phrases and extrapolated upon thought processes on which the foundation for our own Constitution was built said that those who were under oppressive regimes were dutifully bound to rise up and eliminate the threats to their liberty so as to preserve their state and freedom in that state. The State, not the state, is the enemy. While it may seem to be a friend, it really takes and takes and takes and gives almost nothing in return. Our “state” is the way that we would naturally live without a government or society to tell us what to do or what not to do. We all have the ability to live in our natural state and survive, if not thrive. Sure, if we brought the whole thing down in a day there would be a certain amount of chaos that ensued, but then things would slowly return to normal. People who were like-minded in one way or another would begin to congregate and those that preferred some sort of government would form one while those who preferred to keep to themselves and make their own way would go their separate ways. Trade would continue, corporations would live on, some doing one thing, others doing another; everyone working toward one common goal: to be happy and to live the life that they believe is the best picture of the best life that they could possibly live. While this may not be the best of all possible worlds, according to Voltaire: it is a world that can be improved through human work and progression. If human ingenuity persists, which would certainly be the case, then I think that we would be alright in the end.