I’m afraid if I attempt to criticize a single point, I’ll come across as some foolish snob. I lack the knowledge to say it with that phony certainty.

Don’t take what I’m about to say the wrong way…

I feel like the grizzled old man seeing the Irish children playing just as the English army is about to fall upon Wexford. Those innocent and unassuming lads and lasses will be spared nothing. Institutional behavior is universally barbaric. What the individuals involved in oppressing other individuals (sorry for the belabored phrasing, but I feel it necessary to avoid conceptual realism) do think does matter, irrespective of the thoughts of the oppressed. This is not to say that one must engage tyranny on its terms; far from it. What I’m saying is that the observer phenomena is one of the most overlabored points in any field of study: Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It still matters. Besides, I’m not so sure about Einsteinian theory. To put it bluntly, it’s conceptually absurd.

At the strategic level, we might ask ourselves, is the center of tyranny external to ourselves in a position that it does not, at least at some tacit level, require our consent? I think Etienne de la Boetie was absolutely correct, and that his observations obtain in the present. They need it. If I understand you correctly what you’ve suggested denies them that necessary consent. I’m not sure if it’s a first-step or a last-step or another of an endless number of mid-steps, but it is a necessary step to becoming more free. Perhaps there is that initial sensory shock, the one that comes when one first observes either that a given system or institution does not function as advertised. One must, however, as you’ve stated, not lose sight of what one actually desires that such a thing is impeding in the first place, if one is to ever get such a thing.

If I may speculate (with little proper education in the area) upon a historical example: The American revolution failed because the individuals involved failed to escape the mental framework of their oppressors. They were still thinking just like them, and in the end, sowed the seeds for a return to what they had just thrown off. Indeed, the tax and other policies were even more onerous than the British policies that were objectionable enough to warrant secession.

To drive in the backseat a little by rephrasing a point of yours in dry, boring economic language: freedom is probably the only good or end in our lives with an inverse marginal utility. The marginal units increase in value as the quantity increases, perhaps because the services it renders to us approaches infinity as the quantity increases.

I admire what you have done here. It’s something that I’ve been trying to articulate. There are certain lines of action that are, given my ethics, closed to me. I must now contemplate the still infinite (or nearly so) remaining possibilities. Good day, miss.