3.3 Action

Taking action which is different from the conventional has two senses at least, one is that the rare action that one takes is the conventional for the person as one bases the context which is different from other people. The context itself is different for the one from others, and the action comes from one’s original context is ordinary to oneself but rare to others. Another is that one is aware of the norm of society but disagrees with it, that is why one attempts to get diverted from it. Action often takes place when one tries to change the present state or when not convinced by the current social order. One consciously takes their action towards society. In addition, they take action more reactionally in the sense that they had no choice to react given the situation which is going on in the society.

The actions have effect in their community: “When people speak, they are disclosing important aspects of themselves to the world, staking out their own place in a society that consists of millions of distinctive individuals, each defined by his or her principles, values, convictions, and beliefs”(1). Speech is a type of action that claims oneself to the outer world of oneself. When some present something progressive to the world, there is certain possibility of backlash arising from it. Taking action against the conventional has its risk. That often comes from those who prefer the conventional contrary to the one presented. Also, among those who, not prefer the conventional but, are dubious against the idea may oppose it. The stronger the power which moves toward one direction, the more intense the reaction could be. If that is little by little incorporated in the society, the increasing number of people may come to accept it without questioning rigidly, with the probability of conflict decreased. This acceptance is not necessarily what one explicitly, or consciously, admits, it is presumably more frequent to take it for granted without questioning, that is to say getting accustomed to it.

There’s a variety of expression in general. Although the term expression is often used for writing, speech, and painting, it can be taken in a wider meaning. It doesn’t have to be limited within speech and publication, how one behaves is a certain kind of expression. The reason why to take the word in a wider meaning is to suggest behaviours and actions of persons can be recognised as expression and it has more general effect towards society than the limited sense of the word. Although it may be better to use the word in its limited sense in discussing the topics of freedom of expression so that the arguments align with others, it is written in a wider sense so that this indicates the wider link with the general life of persons. Expression is required to change the present state. It is not merely conscious expression but also unconsciously one expresses based on what they perceived. The unconscious reaction is contained in the category of expression, contrary to action which is, not always but, more conscious behaviour.

In terms of the interaction with the world they live in, people’s behaviours are related to the past ones. Things put in the world by the present or past members of community are used. A number of agents involved in a person change the direction of their behaviour. If one has met an admirable person, one’s activities after that may have been greatly influenced. Intangible rules by which people spend their life are accumulation of the past experiences, in other words they are lessons from the past to live a better life for coming generations.

Context could be recognised as accumulation of actions. Person’s action is connected to the context. When one moves their right leg forward to move ahead, it should be accepted if that is to go to a grocery store, but if that is to do wrongdoing, people who noticed it would stop him. The same action can have different context.

Action moves the reality to a certain direction. It can be described as the power to push and the power to pull of context: the former is to expand the sphere progressively which applies to activism, even if it is unconventional, one attempts to expand the frontier; the latter is to pull the edge of the sphere back inside which is more conservative and a resistance to the unconventional action taken by another. Apart from the manipulation of sphere, pulling has another sense that is to pull new things into the norm as such that pulling an interesting cultural product of another country to their own. Also, some sets of norm disappear as time passes by in some cases.

Persons’ action is connected to community, and its norms. In community, it has certain stream of thoughts such as conservative, liberal, globalism, and nationalism. When some group of more globalism moves the norm of their society towards globalism, other group of more nationalism or anti-globalism would pull the norm back to their own end so that the norm of their society doesn’t get diverted that much from what they recognise acceptable. Towards the direction that one prefers, they make action of one’s view. It is also a matter of how society architectures the way in which the reaction caused by one’s action is flowed. For example, in terms of expression, the platforms may create the structure that prevents the spread of misinformation. Restricting every direction is too restrictive and doesn’t progress the society. The early progress of human rights culture has been fostered by the human rights activists who unconventionally questioned the norms that had been oppressing the minorities and the rights of women, for example. The human rights advocates who think the violation of the rights of certain groups of people are not right, they make protests or start movement towards its change. Though there are cases that need to be advocated for the development of society even if that is different from the conventional norms, one needs to be careful of whether it truly has benefits to the public.

If try to go beyond conventional norm, there should be certain public benefit. If one goes against the conventional norm, just violating the dignity of persons harms the society. Society changes over the history with the demand from the citizenry to change the wrong aspect of society in which they live in. It had been taken for granted for some time that “The smallest acquaintance with human life in the middle ages, shows how supremely natural the dominion of the feudal nobility over men of low condition appeared to the nobility themselves, and how unnatural the conception seemed, of a person of the inferior class claiming equality with them, or exercising authority over them”(2). The less powerful positions of certain groups of people such as racial groups or women and the activism to protect their rights and dignity is the examples that some asserted the wrong norms prevalent in previous ages and tried to correct it.

People’s speech is limited by the context, against which some try to expand the sphere of speech. If that is radical, often they cause backlash. Those who speak of what is different from the conventional of society are often criticised. Their publications are tried to be suspended. A shared norm is to work to dislike a certain sort of behaviour. Where justice is too strong, once one happened to have unjust one, even if it is slightly unjust from what has been in the history, one may commit the disappearance of oneself if noticed the deadlock of one’s situation. Justice narrows acceptable conduct. It feels a certain progress coming out of the human rights culture and advocation of justice by liberals, it has been moving towards the good direction. In the meantime, how society with the progress and implantation of the concept handles the deeds which is a bit diverted from justice.

People experience and learn the custom of their society, weaving the threads of custom towards the ideal point which is changeable over time. If radically try to change it, it collides with those who do not agree. One may say that to the extent that doesn’t offend the dignity of another, one can challenge going beyond the present paradigm. In the plain state, when people take actions such as speaking, if not offending they can exercise their power to that direction. The standard is based on the present life circumstance, which means the plain state of plus minus zero at each time, though it is a continual thread of history.

Beyond activism, there’s a choice that one chooses not to express though one can express the view to the public. The choice is because, for example, one can imagine that expressing as one wants is offensive to certain groups of people. People often find the necessity to make action in a certain way. If it is societally obvious to hurt the feelings of others, it would be better to think about the publicness of that publication.

Oppression is attempted to oppress the actions, by which more and more power is charged at the bottom of the oppressed. Not everything is straight, but some are twisted. Distortions in society can cause that sort of twist in society itself, that can get unleashed unexpectedly. They are absorbed as distortions in persons which in spiral causes distortion in others.

(1) Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2014), p. 161. In the page that Waldron talks about C. Edwin Baker.

(2) John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and The Subjection of Women (London: Penguin, 2006), p.145.

3.2.2 Context

Looking at objects from different context is often seen. One of them is that in humanities, people reinterpret the old works written by authors who wrote them in different social context. Even, to quote some passage from other authors’ works are to pull the sentences, and often context, of another and to connect it to the writing of one’s own.

The difference of language is not limited to the case of, for example, English and French. It also includes the case that even if they both speak English, if what they have in their background is different what they mean by using the same kind of words is different. Word is a box in which one can put the meaning into it.

The difference of context can be explained by the plus and quus functions. These functions were explained by Kripke. He described that a person, who has “never performed” the “computation” of “68+57” but has computed others in the past whose “numbers smaller than 57”, responded the answer of “68+57” is “125”(3). He meets another person who claims that the answer “should have been ‘5’!”, and suggests the misinterpretation(4).

Context changes over time in terms of social surroundings including norms, technology, and the changing characters of persons.

Depending on context, the meaning of a word changes.

Apart from the societal view, in individual view, context partly consists of one’s philosophy. As one reread the same book which they have read before, they may notice a new finding which they haven’t got in the previous reading because of their changing character and thoughts over time. Also, one can point out the wrong of another, the person told can recognise it but may not fully understand at the moment in their mind and may understand when their surroundings changed.

Some people come to become stubborn when getting older that is because they are surrounded by solid context from their past experiences. Their views are more fixed than when they were younger, having more factors that underpin them.

People do not talk to the person in front of them especially when they first meet. They talk with people of similar category they have met before. Categorisation and what is required to be said is processed in themselves. People change what they talk, imagining what is in necessity there. That is to say that they presuppose those who listen to it. Humour is in part what kind of speech you make towards a given context.

Whether one recognise it is a lie or not depends on the circumstance. Lying is often perceived negatively, however in some case it also is recognised as not merely negative, that is to say whose case is not able to be just condemned as the action of lying. Lying has arbitrariness in the expression. It is not simple failure or success, lying is different. Deception is intendedly to play different linguistic game between them. In addition, whether what one talked is perceived as arrogant or not depends on what the receiver thinks.

Take the meaning of words superficially, and claim that what it is written becomes an excuse in some cases. It attempts to take advantage of literal sense. The word “literally” is used because people often do not use the word literally.

In the societal perspective, a case is that interpretation of constitution changes depending on the time it is read. Around constitutional issue, in the late 18^th century in which US needed to abolish the Articles of Confederation to have the new Constitution in place, their basis on that move was what’s written in the Declaration of Independence that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”(1). The “rule was valid not because it was found in some authoritative rule book, but because it had become taken for granted by the Framers’ generation. Not by everybody, but by enough”(2). This rule is not likely to be accepted as valid in a different age, and demonstrates the relationship with social surrounding.

As social surroundings change, technological advancement such as computer enabled the rapid spread of information from one place to another. It can be spread in a moment, and peoples’ expressions are abundant in the lives of persons.

The negative aspects also need to be paid attention to. The problem of disinformation is one of them, which is also a problem of informational structure of how to manage the flows of information on the platforms. Besides, when speech is globalised, peoples of different contexts face each other. Compared with the previous ages, it is more likely for different peoples to interact each other with less context shared. It in some cases is beneficial to the development of some intelligence as such that scientific discovery can be shared rapidly in a global world through the communication tools, though some conflicts also arise.

While I feel that it is necessary to spend time in updating the policies put in place in our community, even if we (try to) erase hate speech from public places such as the walls that we see in a city or town, the prejudices or hate which at least partly are the cause of hate speech doesn’t get disappeared from society. In this respect too, the necessity to look at the inner part of oneself to cultivate their compassion towards others is required. Especially, the feeling of what if I were in that position is an essence for having this value in society.

The true creates the context. A true philosopher makes people aware of the important ideas or perspectives in their society, some of which they were even not aware of. Then, they make a history of ideas.

Footnotes

(1) Lawrence Lessig, Fidelity & Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp.12-13.

(2) Lawrence Lessig, Fidelity & Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), p.14.

(3) Saul A. Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1982), p.8.

(4) Saul A. Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1982), pp.8-9.

2.1 Freedom

Published on 10 July 2024, last updated on 13 July 2024

With regard to freedom, there’s a variety of subjects to think about as such that freedom should be secured from government so that citizens can act freely without oppression. Another is the exercise of one’s freedom and its relationship with other people in the same community. Government has their authority to coordinate different interests among different people, which could be interpreted to resolve the conflict of the citizenry.

It is often seen that discussions on freedom go to the extreme edge. When someone was asked not to do a certain behaviour or action, they may claim that it is their right to take the action, but it sometimes feels that saying it one’s own right doesn’t always justify the act. Assume that most people claim their behaviours as their rights even if that harms others, it can be, in other words, regarded that it is one’s right to harm others. Also, one sometimes asks, if it is free, whether one can do everything we want.

One can argue that just because freedom should be preserved doesn’t mean that people should be freely behave whatever they want. The debates around regulation are complicated ones. Some people in a society, those who are more liberal and human rights activists in particular, argue the importance of freedom, that is what I agree with, but in some cases it is dubious that we can prioritise freedom held by people to be exercised in all the cases. People often think of extreme cases that are extremely free or not free at all, but it is a matter that to what degree freedom is ensured. To what extent freedom is tolerated depends on how people create their own culture. The benefit of freedom is to be able to choose the ways in which one acts. If not allowed, one is not able to choose their preferrable way of behaving. It is likely to cause anxiety in the minds of people and distortion in society. It is basically a balance between to what degree we prioritise the freedom of people and to what degree we restrict the freedom of people due to the effect that one’s exercise of freedom causes. Although many support the deployment of human rights concept in societies, to what degree freedom should be exercised among citizens needs to be discussed since the exercise of one’s right can influence others in the same community.

If one is in power, it may be harder for them to allow others to have freedom as it may affect negatively the advantages of those who are powerful. Contrarily, the importance of freedom is easier to understand by imagining the situation that one is not able to behave freely. While learning lesson from the past history of oppression on freedom, people with liberal thoughts has been expanding the human rights culture with some countries moving towards democracy. The culture of human rights and respecting freedom are a progress which has been cultivated from the previous generations.

In talking about freedom, the topic of the rights of individuals are often associated in discussion. Claiming the rights is to claim being able to choose the exercise of power, that is to say that they can choose if they exercise it or not at the moment. The empowered individual has power to some degree. Regarding the rights of people, the United States is known for the unique history. Historically saying, it is described that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”(1). The United States has been focusing on the rights and its protection. They have the famous Bill of rights, to explain it concisely, “The Bill of Rights, drafted by Madison, was passed by the new Congress in 1789 and ratified in December 1791. Its ten articles, incorporated as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, explicitly protect a range of fundamental individual freedoms”(2). The history of these rights-related background in the US contributed to their current culture of the emphasis on the rights.

Footnotes

(1) Lawrence Lessig, Fidelity & Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), p.13. This is what Thomas Jefferson wrote.

(2) Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. 2008. The Federalist Papers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. xxiii.

3.6.2 Reality

With regard to the aspect described in the previous part, in relation to correctability, the standpoint that one looks at the human history at one point of history and another standpoint which is several decades later which is that one looks at the human history with several decades added are different in what elements of history should be emphasised. In individual case, one can recognise the past doing differently. For example, at the age of 18 years old, recognising and interpreting what one does and re-recognising and re-interpreting it at the age of 28 years old could be different as the perspective and objective of one’s life could differ, even if looking at the same action, it can be reasoned different way.

The importance of philosophy, or thinking rests in the condition that at least time and place are limited from humans’ standpoint. That limitation is strong, even if AI or that sort of technology enabled the wider possibility of the world, what humans can listen to and watch are limited. In order to go beyond this limitation imposed on humans, they try to rely on technology, but as far as humans need to make decisions on their societies by meta-recognition, humans require philosophy as philosophy is to recognise the important perspectives to the human beings. Also, by this condition, each person has their own preferences and intimacy towards certain kinds. And each has their uniqueness as they cannot be born and raised in the complete sameness.

It is difficult for human beings to always face the reality. That is why they need to believe in things, which means that they need something they can rely on. The future is unpredictable, and believing in things is in some sense is different from continuously facing the reality. Thinking is related to an inner sphere to which one can try to keep the secure paths to survive the world. That is to say, they make attempts to cope with the harsh reality, in other words it often predeals with difficulties. Without that process of thinking, always accepting realities cannot be endured by the human beings. One example is that people create rules to be put in practice in their community. Its objective is often to make it possible that people of different interests or background can live together. Rule is to limiting the unlimited paths into the more or less limited paths of the future reality. Limiting the possibility of what one wants not to happen. The kinds of things people believe in their life are explained with examples below. For instance, the products that enterprises sell often have some warning or disclaimer on their products to avoid the miscommunication with or potential complaints from their customers. Secondly, traffic light is often installed in intersection which is to avoid car crush, human beings has taken consideration in the past so that they can avoid the crush. However, it is not guaranteed that it doesn’t happen, in reality even if intersection has installed it, it sadly happens with probably decreased possibility. Another case is the train and its timetable. If it doesn’t have timetable, people do not know when it is going to come, the reality of that uncertainty is not what people can endure, that is because they do create the timetable to believe in when it comes, but in the reality it is not guaranteed that train comes on time with its timetable as it delays or stops due to unexpected events. Adding to the above, in a similar way, it could be applied to marriage and eternal love. It has supportive functioning to people’s life.

As for the relationship between reality and trust, if one washes one’s hands to clean in the situation that it is not because one’s hands became visibly unclean but for the sake of sanitation, the hand before and after being washed doesn’t look different. At home, for example, the person doesn’t usually use their mechanical device to check the difference of before and after. What makes difference in being convinced if one has washed their hands or not is their trust towards the world.

Conspiracy arises when mistrust towards the world is accumulated. People cannot look back exactly and precisely what happened in each moment of everywhere around the world. Since it is not possible for persons to know everything happening in the world, their scepticism towards the world dangers the community itself. If they don’t have trust towards the world, trust in a community is a matter of degree, their scepticism grows.

Being completely neutral doesn’t exist, this is because one cannot put an object in the same place of another. If one removes the one put on a table for example and try to put an object on the same place with the removed one, the order of placing affects the neutrality. In addition, placing those two in the nearly same place doesn’t work as it is seen as upper or lower, or right or left, from the perspective of viewer. What is recognised as neutral in a topic a few agents involve, the neutrality is different from the perspective of the outer agent.

To recognise and to give a name on an object loses its neutrality. This is particularly applied to the name of a place. One calls a place by what name is political as the place is called differently by country A and country B(1).

Rightness is consisted of a wider variety of perspectives that always question whether it is right or not while sometimes it corrects itself. President or representatives don’t necessarily make right judgement, additionally saying, just because many, for example citizens, have the same opinion that doesn’t guarantee it is right. In other words, majority rule is not ensured to be right on the one hand, and decision in oligarchy is also not on the other hand.

Rightness can be maintained by always being questioned. When beaten by other arguments, that wasn’t right enough to be maintained. This argument for rightness is closer to the concept of falsifiability. Hiroki Azuma, by referring to Karl Popper’s falsifiability, described that unless a theory proposed in the domain of natural sciences is not proved its falseness by a case, it maintains its theoretical consistency, however it continues to have it opened to the future possibility that it could be demonstrated as false theory by other coming cases that undermine the consistency of the current theory(2).

Whether the community goes to a right direction is partly involved in the leader, given the structure of community where president, prime minister, or any other position is put in place of higher position which has to do with decision-making of community.

This reality can be connected with risks in our life. The newer transportation means such as car enabled persons to move from one place to another conveniently. In the meantime, the invention contains the risk of traffic accident(3).

(1) There are at least several cases of this naming issue in the real geopolitical situations, but a writing by which I came to consciously recognise the perspective was the one written by Hiroki Azuma. 東, 浩紀. 2020. 悪の愚かさについて２、あるいは原発事故と中動態の記憶. in 東, 浩紀(ed.). ゲンロン11. 2020. 東京: ゲンロン. Specifically it is written in p.027.

(2) 東, 浩紀., 2023. 訂正可能性の哲学. 東京: ゲンロン. pp.29-31. He describes the Popper’s falsifiability in the footnote.

(3) 大山, 顕., 2020. 新写真論: スマホと顔. 東京: ゲンロン. p.28.

3.5 Truth

What has been believed true would remain in society whereas it would disappear from the line of being true once the idea is defeated by another. As far as it can demonstrate its rightfulness to others, it would remain as true. There are times in which what has been believed is reversed by another such as heliocentrism. Objects in the world are constantly subject to the risk of its survival. One may come up with the better idea against the conventional one which is in practice, once one’s new idea is spread among the community, it is subject to the competition of ideas. In which, the winning maintains the true than the older one. It is repetition of this cycle in which the older may come up to the society again by the next generation, but would be effective until when it becomes defeated by another by which it may not appear again as true in the world. This potential reappearance of concepts is believed to be applied frequently to humanities when a certain set of conditions comes up to the world which the ancient ideas could be believed to work with the mixture of the present conditions, and to be less applied to natural sciences as the new discovery would prevail against the consistency of the previous truth in that domain. A set of conditions could be technological aspect that new technology enables people to implement what could not have been in the real world or it could be correction of the definition of a concept whose elements were, precisely saying, not totally the same as used before. This correction is close to, or I would say that it is, the correctability(1). By these processes, human beings continue to revalue the concepts which survive through different ages.

In relation to truth, this writing would like to look at the ability to think. It is recognised that “Since Plato, and probably since Socrates, thinking was understood as the inner dialogue in which one speaks with himself (eme emautō, to recall the idiom current in Plato’s dialogues)”(2). The ability to think is thought that “It has, after all, been that ability to think which, when translated to physical terms, has enabled us to transcend our physical limitations and which has seemed to set us above our fellow creatures in achievement”(3).

The true requires thinking as “Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think”(4). Thinking maintains “active state” in the inner and “Its outward inactivity is clearly separated from the passivity, the complete stillness, in which truth is finally revealed to man”(5). Truth has resilience and becomes robust through the thinking in oneself and society.

The true arguments would be likely to prevail. Even if they are not recognised by some people, they are foundations of further development unless those ideas are defeated by others. The right argument would overcome others even if others many times try to be against it(6). That is why discussion among citizens can enhance the outcome. Discussion can convince people before it is implemented and it can inform citizens of its policy beforehand. It can avoid somewhat the probability of social unrest, even if not completely. Democratic discourse can vitalise the society as a whole if the discourse works. Even after the generation changes, that can help the community not lose their vitality.

If a specific person plays the really large role, it is more likely to face trouble in the period of succession(7). Incorporating the democratic process of deliberation is one way to share the knowledge among the people. Discussion makes the community solid, that can be a factor which can connect people and even if they disagree in certain topics, in other topics they may have somewhat of agreement in opinions. In a situation that they are completely different opinions, as far as their fundamental values such as their benefits are shared it works. Discussion is a way to get a community deeper into thoughts, and it is not limited to the time in which it occurred. It has extensive character of making a habit for people to search more think more for a topic they will encounter next time. Even if not strongly rooted as a habit for people, slightly the experience affects people and have community more intelligent. That can let one know what didn’t come up with one’s mind. Democracy is inefficient and it takes time to come to consensus, however it also has the benefit of trying to create the culture by which one gets accustomed to thinking. This voluntary process of thinking in oneself is a fundamental condition in democratic politics. The culture creates the ecosystem in which people of the next generation can get the advantage of it. Since persons are mortal, the advancement of their ecosystem is the one that give benefits to the next generations.

The problem at around the beginning of 21st century lies in the persons’ tendency to take less time in thinking, and takes the form of language as what it means. To the argument of saying that it is not what he meant, one would show the evidence of the sentence that the person has written before. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean what one takes literally, the intended meaning often differs from what that literally means.

One can show himself to another as a different way from what one thinks in his mind. As persons are able not to explicitly show what they truly had thought at the time of publicly disclosing, the emphasis on what’s not visible matters. This could be applied to the cases that the person in power of a country call for the public for their support in a way that is more likely to convince the public although they may not truly believe in what they say. The public requires the judgement by themselves on what politicians say towards them. It is also a matter of what one says is related to one’s position in society. If a politician needs to get support from the public to win next election, the mindset of hoping to get more votes incentivise their speech more or less towards their purpose. Also, people in a public gathering would behave in a different way from the ordinary self. They do not behave as they are with their friends in a place where they need to socialise with others they meet for the first time. In case of socialising, people are to show their good aspects of themselves in many cases to the ones they talk with. It is not only those obvious examples, but applies to those who appear on TV shows, their way of talking has a sort of similar ways that makes their speech easier to be communicated to their audience.

(1) Correctability is explained in the book titled Philosophy of Correctability by Hiroki Azuma. As of 1 October 2023, available in Japanese as follows: 東, 浩紀., 2023. 訂正可能性の哲学. 東京: ゲンロン.

(2) Arendt, H., 2018. The Human Condition. Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 291.

(3) Penrose, R., 2016. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 3.

(4) Mill, J. S., 2006. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. London: Penguin. p. 41.

(5) Arendt, H., 2018. The Human Condition. Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 291.

(6) Mill, J. S., 2006. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. London: Penguin. p. 26.

(7) Buterin, V., 2022. DAOs are not corporations: where decentralization in autonomous organizations matters. [Online] Available at: https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/09/20/daos.html [Accessed 5 November 2022].