STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery

[unir 1]

I would believe that in protecting one self from the will of another, the protected self must abide by the limits of that very protection, i.e.: you can not leave a certain area or the security guards may not be able to fully establish protection against an attacking other self. This is where the entity must be willing to follow this protection of law, and so I believe the protected self becomes imprisoned or enslaved unintentionally. The entity is freed of the enslaving law when it no longer uses it, which many have not done to societal restrictions as shown in the quote.

Questioner: I would say that a very high percentage of the laws and restrictions within what we call our legal system are of a nature of enslavement of which I just spoke. Would you agree with this?

Ra: I am Ra. It is a necessary balance to the intention of law, which is to protect, that the result would encompass an equal distortion towards imprisonment. Therefore, we may say that your supposition is correct.This is not to denigrate those who, in green and blue-ray energies, sought to free a peaceable people from the bonds of chaos but only to point out the inevitable consequences of codification of response which does not recognize the uniqueness of each and every situation within your experience.

There is still always a choice to abide or not, so at any time the attacking entity may continue it's attack careless of the law. Just the same, the protected entity may love the other self and accept it's actions. As either abides by the law I think it becomes unintentional enslavement- following the will of another entity, and not you're own- if you are not in accordance with the parameters of the law. But is to infringe to be infringed, where stopping one entity from doing such an act infringes that very will?