When a person adheres to certain views regarding the social order, desires specific social changes, and especially engages in practical activities aimed at their popularization and implementation, they may encounter certain risks and threats. I think it is unnecessary to remind you that oppositional views are very often persecuted by the established political power. Even in fairly liberal and democratic societies of the Western world, human rights and freedoms are still limited, and views that do not align with the government agenda are suppressed. And what can be said about non-liberal and non-democratic societies? In them, one can receive severe punishment, or even lose one’s life, simply for expressing an opinion that does not coincide with the “official” point of view.
Activity that questions the established social system is obviously dangerous and risky. But does this problem apply to absolutely all such activity? Let’s look at a few striking examples that allowed it to be successfully avoided.
One such example is the emergence and spread of the internet. This led to previously unseen informational freedom, the effective uniting of people sharing the same interests, and the free organization of various activities, including those aimed at achieving social changes. A very important role in the formation of a free internet specifically was played by the fact that stationary bandits (states) simply underestimated its potential. Many conservative “experts” in the past were extremely skeptical of the internet and believed that it would not have a significant impact on social and economic life.
Imagine what would have happened if governments had understood the potential of the internet from the start. They would surely not have allowed such freedom, introducing many laws regulating its operation long before its wide distribution. Perhaps the creation of any internet resources would have been subject to direct regulation and licensing by government agencies. Also, internet providers would have been required from the beginning to technically design the network’s operation in a way that prevented the emergence and functioning of resources not approved by the government.
Of course, nothing of the sort happened. Governments seriously began to regulate the internet only when access to it was already in the hands of almost every person, countless resources had been created within it, and it had become an integral part of economic activity. They and their “experts” turned out to be fools, unable to understand a fundamentally new informational tool.
A similar story happened with cryptocurrencies. States explicitly forbid using anything as a medium of exchange and payment other than the money they themselves issue. But initially, cryptocurrencies were barely perceived as money by anyone; they were treated as a toy, a diversion for a small number of “geeks.” And only when they acquired huge scales did governments undertake their regulation. Most likely, if governments had realized the potential of cryptocurrencies from the start, they would have simply introduced laws banning any such means. Now, it is too late to introduce a complete and abrupt ban.
One can conclude that it is safest to participate in the promotion and implementation of those ideas aimed at achieving social changes which no governments will initially take seriously. And such activity has the best chance of actually changing the world, since governments, due to their own lack of understanding and lack of interest, will not ban it or punish the people associated with it.
Perhaps those who are still engaged in activity that is quite clear and absolutely comprehensible to stationary bandits should switch to other ideas that are underestimated by them despite their enormous potential? For example, such an idea could be the complete eradication of violence as a tool for achieving any goals and as a method of interaction between people, which is what is promoted on this channel.
