Controversy, Courage And Liberty.

THE negation of controversy comes about through the unwillingness to have that which people hold close disturbed. That which people hold close could be the stability of their family, a quaint sense of belonging, a scenic place of residence, the fear that their immediate circle of friends will be fractured etc.

For many people these social, scenic and stable friendships are foundational because it fulfills the needs of their lifestyle. By thinking this way, the person conflates their lifestyle with life itself. The person makes projections of what may become of him or her if there is no "stability" in their lives which is brought forth by way of lifestyle.

A person that requires a set form of stability cannot be very stable in the general sense of the word because they cannot adapt to those wholly exterior elements of life which impose themselves upon the lifestylist. Such uncontrollable elements would be family tragedies, power outages, odd coincidences, a sudden fire or unjust laws which are intrusive in nature.

When met with these circumstances, the lifestylist must push their style of living life to the side and begin focusing on the most primary attributes best suited to adapt to the present circumstances as life itself is too multidimensional to expect a particular style of living to be flexible based on ones ideals.

New attributes supersede the habit of lifestyle which has created a regimented set of actions which cause the acting agent to be repulsed by the idea of creating controversy. The florist, baker, barber or pub owner are not accustomed to argue and are thus uncomfortable about not complying with immoral laws or unlawful government edicts. Yet it is only by arguing that one can acquire the custom of virtuos non compliance and begin attracting people who are more advanced in practicing that custom.
People who are unwilling to exercise their civil liberties because they fear controversy do not realize that controversy is fleeting whereas civil liberties can only be strengthened when they are practiced.

If one conducts themselves in a manner that exudes passion for Liberty as opposed to being bitterly critical of those lesser persons who create controversies to intimidate others, then the concensus of those who thought you to be a rogue individual will either maintain their delusions of who they think you are while a silent majority will be more supportive once you provide them with clarification. People recognize that which is genuine when they believe a person to be of a sound mind once they deduce and intuit that his or her reasoning is of a fair nature.

There may be certain persons who may disagree with your actions, but they will not see you as a controversial figure upon understanding that that you are not looking to cause trouble but that you behaved in a way that was taken to be controversial at face value.

It is thus perspective which dictates what I call passive condemnation which is quick to conclude what is wrong without any further analysis. This type of condemnation is fleeting due to it being passive in nature as people only take a momentary interest in newsworthy stories before another story of equal or higher controversy outdoes the previous one.

All controversies have variance in that a blatantly violent act will hinder your reputation for a longer period than a misunderstanding. In most cases, people fear the latter wheras a violent criminal has committed a violent crime because he or she enjoys the thrill. If a criminal has the ability to cope with controversy, then why can’t people who have been oppressed by unlawful government edicts cope with controversy when they have a clear conscience? They may find that willing themselves to disobey alleviates themselves from the fear of having to deal with further oppression. Fear of causing controversy is a product of speculative projection which begs the question of what may happen if one takes action x. Disobedience makes change happen without having to forecast what controversies may arise due to ones disobedience to the state.

I understand that in certain contexts the courage to disobey is overruled by compliance when one’s livelihood is at stake--but if a person strategizes in a covert manner to ensure they don’t attract controversy, but attempts to make changes by sharing their wisdom anonymously, they have then shown a form of courage because despite taking the safe route for monetary purposes, they have instead decided to fight from their soul.

Courage precedes Liberty in that one must have the virtue of courage to maintain the values of Liberty. If one does not have the courage to defend a value, then that value will fade from the culture as the virtues that underpin Liberty cannot breath life into that value. It is virtue that combines wisdom and action whereas a value becomes valuable when it is conceived out of virtue in order for society to function in utility and spirit.

End.