If we darest not own ourselves, and should socially accepted legalese in fact bluntly forbid us from doing so, then we truly are mere links to a collective chain. And, were we by natural esteem or were we not the weakest of links, we possess the ability to make it so. In this manner, self-destruction actually makes quite a lot of sense. It’s akin to Solomon, proverbially ordering for the baby to be sworded in half for the contesting mothers to thus both receive an equal share. The false mother simply wanted to deprive the true mother of her rightful maternal experience and so was open to seeing the baby cut in half, while the true mother did not wish to see this or any baby cut in half, for what is hopefully obvious reasons.
King Solomon calculated that outcome, but what if his captain of the guards jumped the gun in executing his master’s command? What about the many leaders of the world right here and now private jetting out of their respective ways to guarantee they themselves create no new leaders? In our own defense do we have the ability to fall on our own swords however, and then, what will such leaders have to lead over?
We can legally forbid self-destruction, but we cannot legally forbid greed. Ambition itself is often a point of envy and pride for the masses, an aspiration to align after. People who are not goal-oriented do not get to go out on dates, they do not get the work spaces with windows, they only get the jobs where pre-employment drug-screening is mandatory. Successes won through lying, cheating and stealing are applauded, even rewarded further with the highest offices of authority, but to no longer wish victimization from lying, cheating or stealing is a felony under national law. As though such experiences would be avoidable by any other means.
And yet when we actively make public record the many equivalenting nuances of our lives, have we become directors of snuff all the same.