Would you choose to live in an ideal world? Or would you choose to live in a uncontrollable world with true freedom?
We strife so ignorantly towards a perfect world where everyone is equal, not knowing that when we reach this ideal, we could very well give up what makes us unique. In order to attain a perfect world, everyone has to come to a consensus on an ideal. Whether it is helping people whenever you can or killing people whenever you can, it does not really matter. As long as everyone is in agreement, there will be no right and wrongs. If everyone agreed that killing is right, you could walk right up and stab someone and it wouldn't matter to anyone else at all because we are all in agreement that killing is ok. As long as we maintain differences, there will be no ideal world. Conflicts will arise, even if the only difference among us is interest. Take for example, if everyone was in agreement about everything except golf and soccer. There would still be conflicts regarding media relating to golf and soccer. Of course this example is loaded with contradictions, such as the idea of agreeing that there should be no conflicts. The truth about our world is that there is no true equality, we can only try to achieve it and we should only stay trying. Because if we did actually achieve it, we would all lose our individualism, which in turn relates to a totalitarian society that we all so ironically fear.
The price of freedom comes at a high cost. Since true equality is impossible without losing our individuality, conflicts will always be present. The consequences of these conflicts will always increase in a cumulative fashion, resulting in something nobody wants. Even if we all come in agreement to just one thing. Take for example, Everyone agrees that violence should never occur. Party A wants to drink beer. However, the government and majority of the people are in agreement that beer causes more harm than good to the society. As more Party As gather, the idea becomes stronger and they start to create a riot which acts on civil disobedience. Since the government cannot disperse the riot through violence, should the government compromise and allow beer or should they reject which in turn results in Party A causing harm to society by blocking traffic etc. The end result is traffic accidents which causes harm to the victim's family. From there onwards, it is collateral and cumulative damage. All party A wanted was to drink beer and all they did was block traffic.
The irony in our own ideals is that the ideals we so eagerly yield usually comes hand-in-hand with the dire conflicts we so eagerly try to shed. The reality of freedom is indeed a difficult truth.
Languages and communities
6 months ago