When defending our freedom there should be no middle ground.

Those of us who support the ideas of freedom (and probably everyone involved in crypto supports freedom) can often be incriminated as extremist and utopian individuals. "There are no absolutes", some affirm, to denigrate that supposed and stigmatized utopian attitude.

When our own lives are testimony of the philosophy of freedom, when we put into practice what we believe is the most important thing in order to achieve our own happiness, such accusation supposes a deep ignorance of the effort that must be made to not only be coherent with ourselves but to be prepared for the disqualifications that accuse us as "extremist or utopian". In any case, and contrary to what is commonly understood, I define as extremist, any action or attempt to persecute citizens for their political, religious or any other type of private choice that should always be respected in a context where actions are based on the respect of personal freedom.

The defense of freedom in the public sphere is not an action that should accept a middle ground. In the personal order, in any case, implies a voluntary individual choice, always willing to do something pursuit of what we consider most appropriate for our scale of values. Maintaining an ambiguous attitude before the subjugation of individual freedom promotes irreparable consequences that grow exponentially to the detriment of the well being and happiness of everyone.

Defending individual rights and freedom is neither extremism and much less a utopia. Those who say so seem to ignore the fact that giving up a part of individual freedom to an all powerful state is to open a door for new and future regulations and conditions to apply to our individual rights, and yet, that seems to be the trend right now in the world. More government control and more regulations everywhere we look.

I would bet that if the same tendency to accuse against those who promote policies that respect freedom, was instead applied to accuse those who attempt against liberties, much of the world would not live subject to the authoritarian paternalism of powerful governments. Extremist is the one who believes that a ruler, protected by the power conferred by the state forces, has the ability to tell you how to handle your life and regulate the activity in which you have pawned hours of study and work or how to manage your resources that were achieved honestly. Extremist is also the one who is motivated by the threat against those who think and live differently, and wishes to have the right to manage your life or your work regardless of your desires.

If the task of confronting those true extremists is already difficult, it is harder to convince people that the defense of freedom does not tolerate ambiguities. The indoctrination through propaganda has made several generations believe that extremists and people who believe in utopias are the ones who defend freedom at all costs but not those who cut your rights and subject you to the arbitrariness of unjust political, social and economic regulations. An example of those unjust regulations is the attack crypto has been suffering recently.

It is absurd to consider "utopian" those who defend the right to live in a free society and choose to act according to their values and not to consider extremists those who force others to read, consume and adopt rules that attempt against others way of thinking and surrender meekly to the wishes of the "enlightened" who assume the right to think and act for everyone else.

Many societies are beginning to awaken from the abuse and intentional distortion of the concepts imposed by those extremist governments that, protected by the deception and the abuse of the same political system that opened the door to power, ended up settling as authoritarian regimes.

Besides, now, thanks to technology and blockchain being a perfectly recent example, we now have tools that allow us to take an even stronger stand as defenders of our own freedom.

Do you think our freedom is increasing or decreasing?