Legislative Dictatorship vol_3 – The Price of Freedom

1. What are you writing?! – While writing, the most important thing an author must know is to realize that they cannot write anything new that has not already been reasoned out by those better than them. For me, intellect has one property: it can compel its bearer to alter reality. Obsessed with this idea, I attempt to comprehend the price of freedom.
2. What are you writing about?! – In the legal paradigm, freedom may be the most precious thing that exists, yet simultaneously it must be divided into three parts within the prism of: rights, obligations, and responsibility. The juxtaposition of these pillars yields freedom. If among these three components any one subdues another, freedom ceases to exist there; it is rather an illusory tranquility that augurs chaos for the future.
3. Space – The legislative space was created so that the individual could be governed, so that appropriate and necessary spaces could be established for them, and through the balancing of these three components, the individual would have the opportunity for development. Development is perpetual motion, progress, and/or regression;

4. And then?!
4.a. Right – For instance, a person has the right to possess a firearm. A person must use this firearm for its intended purpose, which signifies an obligation; and if a person does not use the firearm for the intended purpose confirmed by the law, then according to the law established by the legislator, responsibility will ensue for them. This is a simple example by which freedom is revealed to me (and not explained; "revealed" means when I explain it to myself). But the interesting point is that if a person has the right to purchase a weapon and keep it in a safe, but does not have the right to carry it, is freedom actually present?!
4.b. Method – With this simple method, any given situation can be deconstructed: be it paying taxes, opening an LLC, or anything else. Not every individual has the luxury to spend even 1 hour of their daily allotment on these explanations and clarifications; consequently, whoever is interested in the aforementioned issues must themselves provide these clarifications.
4.c. Expressed Poetically – The purpose of the legislative space is to arrange a situation where rights are confirmed, obligations are acknowledged, and responsibility is circumscribed.
4.d. Explained – When I say "confirmed," I mean exactly confirmation, because the law is a means of confirming truths, such as: the right to life, the right to the pursuit of happiness, and many others by which a human's humanity must continue. While no state struggles with acknowledging rights, the problems invariably and constantly begin in the second and third parts, utilizing them to effect the complete destruction of the primary substance—that is, the content of the right;

5. Obligation?
5.a. Why? – Whenever any individual is born, alongside rights, they are endowed with obligations offered by the respective state. These obligations are what the state dictates to them, be it "do not do this" or "do this, but within these frameworks." The establishment of these frameworks has authors, and it is called either the legislative space or the ruling class. Governing is an art, but those who are governed find nothing amusing about it. The governed should not be merely unseen characters on a book's cover; rather, besides the protagonist, it is the attitude toward them that assigns value to the work.
5.b. Because – It is an obligation, for example, that if you have the right to purchase a weapon, you must not rush into a store with this weapon and demand money that is not yours. Or how you should exercise a certain right. These established frameworks possess one trait: they are set by those who in most cases do not participate in them or participate only in minute doses. Therefore, any regulation does not always turn out precise, and it has flaws, and yes, this is acceptable and possible; no one can be completely protected from this. But during regulation, does a means exist to prevent this?
5.c. Sensation – To avoid sounding overly poetic, what is the legal sensation during the exercise of a right? The sensation does not exist because the law lacks the means to represent emotions; accordingly, how a right is exercised—its content—is not the daily routine of the individual. Yet, few things in a country can be more important than how this or that right is exercised.
5.d. The Framework of a Right – The framework they establish for the exercise of a right is where the right comes alive and exists. If a right is not mature, then obligation becomes its parent, when in fact it should be exactly the opposite;

5.e. And then?! – The frameworks of a right should be established by society and respond to necessities; they must not be fabricated. But this cannot be realized if mandated individuals are not present in the mandated legislative body, which a priori means confrontation among the individuals present there. Their attitude toward one another, their debates, and the exchange of arguments somewhat establish the minimal framework for the exercise of a right. But if only the ruling class makes the decision, it will constantly tailor decisions to its own needs and not to the needs of society.
5.f. Method?! – There is no established method that guarantees the setting of such a framework for the exercise of a right that will prevent the right from disappearing. To determine whether this framework is good or bad, answering a simple set of questions provides a method when regulating a specific right:
5.f.a. Who is implementing this regulation? – The parliament, a ministry, the president, or the prime minister;
5.f.b. Why is this regulation being implemented? – What was the reason causing this regulation;
5.f.c. For whom is this regulation implemented? – Is it directed toward a specific group or the entire society;
5.f.d. Why is it being implemented now, at this time, at this stage? – Does the necessity for it exist now? And if the necessity existed, why was it not regulated previously?
5.f.e. Whose and which rights are curtailed or expanded by this regulation? – This is crucial because regulation either curtails or expands rights.
5.g. Result – If there is an answer to these questions and it demonstrates that rights are diminishing, it means the goal of the regulation is to hollow out the content of the right or curtail it, which signifies a threat to freedom. If, through this regulation, the content of rights expands, then freedom is not threatened;

6. Responsibility?!
6.a. Concept (the legislative variant of the concept) – Responsibility is not and should not be a general concept. The state must, of course, set a limit on how the individual should use this right; moreover, setting this limit means the state devises a sort of rules of the game for how this right should be exercised. It is imperative and mandatory that, based on these rules of the game, the primary right is not drained of its content.
6.b. Example – If you tell me that, for example, I have the right to purchase a weapon but not the right to carry it, then what results—what rule of the game are you proposing to me as an individual? The primary purpose of a weapon is to ensure the protection of the life, health, property of that person and/or their family members; and if I do not carry it with me, how is this to be executed? By what means should I defend myself when I have the right to purchase a weapon but not to carry it? (A firearm is merely an example). If the state confirms to me that I have the right to own a vehicle, but concurrently increases the vehicle tax tenfold to obtain ownership of the vehicle, then how is that right to be exercised? On what basis?
6.c. The Line – The exercise of a right is a line that must be straight, not oblique, constantly requiring correction. Establishing the rules of the game does not require knowledge of many books and/or attending many seminars. The rules of the game are what we agree upon;

6.d. Example of the line – For instance, you have all seen how well-kept the grass is in a newly opened park; however, if you walk through the same park in 2 or 3 months, you will see that where there was previously grass, there is now a strip where people walk, and this becomes a path. But this path was not created by one person; it was created by many. For some reason, 100 or more people chose to walk the exact same route and trampled the grass in a place where walking was not supposed to be allowed.
6.e. Natural Regularity?! – I do not see natural regularity in this; I see a created reality that forms itself through the participation of many individuals. Consequently, rules can be established by the legislator, but this must occur within the perspective of complete and necessary mandating, which means it must come from their own electorate—otherwise known as the mandate of the voter, public opinion, etc.
6.f. The Bureaucrat in Responsibility – The bureaucrat and/or bureaucracy is an essential feature of a state governed by the rule of law; without it, such a state cannot exist. But the legislative space must not be created by a bureaucrat according to someone's whim. If my rights only lie "in a safe" (in the law) and I cannot utilize them on the street, am I even a free subject? Does a right that is written down somewhere, but whose usage is so restricted as to render it useless, even exist at all? When an architect lays a path not where people want to walk, why do people nevertheless collectively start walking exactly there? The architect knows their job; they were paid for it, prepared it, presented it, and the recipient executed it—yet people collectively still traverse another place. The question arises: why does this happen?!

6.g. Ultimately?! – Consequently, the zone, space of responsibility, etc., must be such that it can establish the appropriate measures for how the exercise of the right should be conducted.
6.h. In Addition – Regulation is not a bad thing; for me, it is comprehended within the content of freedom. But regulation has its scale and its future. Regulation cannot be something that subdues the right; otherwise, the very existence or non-existence of the right comes under a question mark.
6.i. Excessively – Now for the most important part: how should it be interpreted whether a particular regulation has reached the appropriate scale? A definitive answer to this does not and cannot exist, because every case is individual, and all cases cannot be measured with the same yardstick. If you justify a vehicle tax to me with ecology, then you will justify the ban on carrying a weapon by saying "there will be more violence." Accordingly, more important than justification or non-justification is how we manage to do what no one has managed to do: create some methodology of evaluation?! Evaluating this is impossible in the present; its evaluation is possible in the future. That is, when a boundary is established, that boundary exists, and subsequently reveals a flaw—this is the methodology; until then, the reasoning must be about what it will bring;

7. Freedom and its Price
7.a. Trite – In some cases, the masses consider this phrase so trite that they cannot comprehend its meaning. Freedom does not have the right not to be free—this is also a poetic answer. The rational answer, however, is that when someone is mandated, these central questions, answers, debates, and content must exist to allow this person to create the legislative space. I am not an idealist, but striving toward an ideal is what will give us the opportunity to attain freedom.
7.b. The Price – As long as the individual is occupied with their daily routine, as long as these issues are not central to them, the individual, by ignoring this, pays the price with the loss of their own freedom. Rights are diminished, or if a right exists, it is stripped of its content. And finally, when the individual asks why the law, economy, or anything else cannot develop, it is already too late, and the necessity to reboot the system arises;