There are political models that have an unparalleled discursive power. Above all when they are protected by beautiful words such as "freedom". Needless to say, it is a beautiful word, but for freedom to exist, there has to be a legal structure where EVERYONE can access this precious right. Freedom is a right, not a privilege. Those who do not have access to freedom must be protected by the system, not marginalized.

     Sadly, freedom is not a phenomenon that occurs by spontaneous generation. This would be an ideal, of course. But we live in a profoundly unequal society, where a small sector grabs most of the resources. To speak of freedom in this context, I believe, is simply to pave the way for the strongest to maintain their dominant position. I even heard those who say that "freedom" is capable of destroying the immense monopolies that exist. Honestly, after delving into this subject, it seems to me that it is completely implausible. Those who have a dominant position in the capitalist system are not going to give up their extraordinary privileges WITHOUT GIVING BLOODY BATTLE.

     A curious phenomenon where we can point out the contradiction is the so-called "freedom of expression". Mercenary and corporate journalism constantly talk about freedom and their rights as communicators. But by scratching a little the surface of the discourse, we realize that those who propagated this liberal discourse are actually oppressors. They need the freedom to be able to continue drowning out the weakest voices.

     In the case of freedom of expression, it is necessary that all communicators have the same power to transmit their messages. Freedom of expression IS NOT POSSIBLE if some shout while others whisper.

     An independent media has its freedom of communication diminished by its limited resources. Freedom is an end that can only be achieved through the effective regulation of oppressors. I believe that if we allow society to regulate itself autonomously, we are simply going to remove the muzzle from the predators, who even under these regulations succeed in tearing apart the weak.

     Imagine what would happen without laws! And where is the freedom for the consumers of information? Where is the right to receive truthful information? Not that opinion-laden rubbish.

We can say that they use information as a commodity, when the information is a RIGHT.

---

---

Can we affirm that meritocracy is a fair system?

     It makes sense to think that individuals have the right to receive the fruit of their effort and sacrifice. Of course, it sounds legitimate. But the small detail is that in this career of merit, not everyone starts in the same place. Many are born at the end of the race, while others are born barefoot two blocks from where the competition begins. In this case, merit only makes sense when everyone is born in the same place in the race and with the same resources to participate. I see no merit in competing against someone who runs barefoot, poorly fed and with a jean while another does so with competitive shoes, 200 meters ahead, feeded properly, healthy and trained. It should be clarified that in my opinion, this wave of "meritocracy" began to be used a lot along with the birth (also born from the media) that "there are people who live off the state" that I think is one of the most nonsensical speeches and with little argumentative support heard in a long time.

---

Does anyone really think that anyone can only subsist on social care?

     Calculate how much it takes to live (rent of housing, clothing, food, services and education if you have a child) and compare it with the social benefits that the supposedly "maintained" receives. I don't know the cases in all countries, but at least in mine (Argentina) the social benefits are of a tiny value compared to what it costs to live. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I think it's that kind of discursive that "sounds good, sounds coherent" and repeats itself until it's fed up.

     Obviously, in my speeches, I am automatically labeled "left-handed, communist, socialist" among other things, but these (I think) are nicknames that were given to each and every one of the people who bid (wrong or right) for a more just society, where everyone has the same possibilities to develop and grow. There is a belief that with "hard work" you can grow economically and be successful. But marginality is a very complex phenomenon to arrive with this type of reductionism. If you live in a cardboard house, surrounded by delinquency, your father is drunk and a hitter, your mother is a drug addict and your brothers are thieves. Waiting for the new Einstein to develop in such an environment is unlikely. Sadly, it is a cultural battle, in which the state has the role of saving newborns from falling into the same situation as their parents; but at the same time, they can only separate them from their families in extreme cases. Because bad or good, the love for the family, whether deserved or not, is something natural in children. Here in my country (Argentina) there is something called "Universal Assignment per Child" in which the whole plan is not paid, only half. The reason for this is quite intelligent in fact, so that at the end of the year you get paid that part you lack, they must meet basic requirements such as presenting the school certificate and the certificate of vaccination. This is, in my opinion, an excellent measure, since it takes children out of begging and puts them in school, perhaps the home environment is still just as bad; but by regularly attending school you have the chance to see that there is a better future and that you can have access to it. Sanitizing this marginal sector requires constant measures over many years. After all, poverty is as old as humanity. In Africa there are those who live in the most abject inhuman conditions, yet in the midst of all that freedom (let's say African states are not very strong) the only ones who win are those who plunder their resources and those who live best are those who form murder gangs (at the service of the highest bidder).

     It is also difficult, when compared to countries with solid institutions, where the great predators of the world cannot do what they want with society. Here even, freedom is feasible, the greater the equality of opportunities, the more effective this freedom is.

     After all, I believe that between me and the liberals we are looking for the same thing. My origins, without going any further, are profoundly anarchist. I dream of a self-managed society, but at the same time, I am aware of the naivety of believing that we have the capacity to manage ourselves in communities. Today the great mass of the population is profoundly ignorant, aggressive and selfish. We all seek our own benefit no matter how many heads we have to step on in order to achieve it.

     Perhaps, I see on the basis of a talk I had yesterday in a @informationwar podcast. What if we see the same symptoms do not coincide in the diagnosis. They believe that the "big winner" of this system is the state, therefore; the politicians. I believed the same thing, but I changed my mind for some data that seemed relevant to me. Politicians change over the years, it would make more sense perhaps in monarchies like the UK. But with administrative offices rotating every 4 years, the system itself would collapse without that leadership that maintains a level of massive fraud perpetrated over the centuries.

_{No one is exempt from taxes, even the most humble when they buy some milk in the store they pay much more than that is worth.}

     I believe that worrying about creating mentally stable individuals with deep social convictions is the answer to deep and perishable change. Ultimately, if we want to govern ourselves, we must worry about being better. The state does not exist by spontaneous generation nor was it born in order to enrich those who hold public office. The state was born to provide, by whatever means necessary, the same opportunities in this savage race for personal gain. The state governs for all, not just the "good working citizens. The riches of one nation belong to all, no one is better than no one. We are all what we do with what they made of us.