thank you nancy. much better to be "very cute" than an arsss.
if your intentions for me are for me to comply with you, then the responsibility or freedom of will lies with me to intend and create something different or accept your intentions. in the same sense, if TPTB intend for our compliance to their end, then it is up to the free will of the individual to intend for something else or comply. i don't seek to change the reality of others. i seek to change my own reality that i share willingly with others. if others don't accept my intentions, then they are free to put forth their own intention. i think that is the co-creative process at work. i agree with your views on resistance, but not as an absolute. in terms of this discussion (freedom of information), i think that humanity is the natural resistance to TPTB intentions of secrecy. they are the ones who will inevitably yield to the increasing resistance of the people's inherent need to know.
i agree completely with your points on the difficulties of telling "everyone else" what they "should" do. i'm a minimalist at heart and i think we can apply a minimalist approach to our notions and expectations of what should or shouldn't be. BUT, if we are going to co-exist on this earth-plane, then we are forced to live by some rules and/or structure. i believe we are in the process of determining that structure, and everyone has a say. because of the vast differences in opinions of what "should" be, we should keep it simple.
from one perspective it is a "solo trip", but from another it is collaberative. we cannot escape the affect of our neighbor. if my neighbors dog poops on my lawn, then i am obligated to tell my neighbor what he "should" do with his dog. i also am not concerned with what others think. i am concerned with what others do, because those actions affect me. TPTB can think they are superior to me, but they cannot commit actions that oppress my will. if they do, then i will act out against them. and, i am just in opposing my oppressors, because my will is free.
the fact that we have differences, does not negate the fact that we are created equal. no matter if you're a materialist that believes we come from mindless energy, or a spiritualist that believes we are souls incarnate from a mindful source, we are inherently equal. if you believe everything including us comes from a mindful source and that source is ONE, then we are also ONE. therefor, we are created equal in the mind or structure of ONE. we are equal parts of the whole. no differences experienced in duality can negate this logic. the fact that we are currently experiencing separation from source does not negate our inherent equality. our inherent equality is not removed from us during separation, it is forgotten. how can our shared place in ONENESS be negated? only thru our collective ignorance. but ignorance of oneness, does not translate into loss of oneness. at our core we are one, and from that core principle we can devise a few basic "shoulds".
you seem to agree with premise 2. and your "that's the way it is", "everyone does it" defense is not going to work against it. i bet that defense doesn't work when your kids use it. the point is not about knowing everything. it is about everyone having equal access to the same information. the fact that our differences will limit some in their ability to interpret and utilize said information, is also not the point. the point is about an equal opportunity for all humans to access information to the best of their ability and in alignment with their free will.
our difference on "rights" is debated in premise 1. i still maintain that our "rights" naturally extend from our core essence. if rights were relegated to the ability of one to take and hold for itself, then we would be forced to accept the determined rights of TPTB. inside your logic it would follow that someone could declare it their right to take your house and family, and keep it for themself. we might not have the power to grant rights to others, but we do have the power to agree on rights that coincide with the whole. and this can be done if we agree on the fact of inherent oneness or equality. i realize this line of thinking is ripped from the declaration, but who, when, and where the logic comes from is not relevant to the argument itself.
do you really believe that the government has just as much right to hide information as you, your children, and the rest of us has a right to life???
Hobbs also tried to argue that might makes right. but history has shown us time and again that might, when forced on the light, only creates a consolidation of power, disalignment, and disturbance to the natural flow of equality and oneness. the survival of the fittest model of governance is antiquated. time for an upgrade. a model of governance based on the simple truth of oneness. no need for iconic figures. much need for simple logic and an agreed upon truth. IF we can agree that we are equals, then we should be able to agree on our shared freedom for information. i guess it is very entertaining.
