It’s probably occurred to you too to stumble upon arguments about taxes, welfare, races and other things. It happens to me all the time.

My question is why sit and argue while everyone can have what they want without adversely affecting the other?

What, do you think it’s not like that? You know it is like that. You know you’ve never had such problems untill you got told you had them.

What stops a -small or large- group of person to form a political, religious, philosophical, other group and live like they wish to? Answer: nothing. They stop themselves and then they try to stop each other too.

Because some try to have it all, that is to say some try to control it all. They demand that all must have their own system. And guess what, they’re not the only ones. On the other side there are many others who want the same. And that’s why we fail to be like we want to be and to associate with the ones we like, and to live the lives we want to live.

We can really have anything we want. We can have our feminism, our nazism, our communism, democracy, anarchy, catholicism, atheism, you name it; only for as long as we allow the same for others too. If we fail to allow others, we also lose our right too. And the same is true for how we wish our selves to be like or our intersexual relationships to be like or anything else.

Allow and be allowed. That is the only ‘thing’ that will ever work easily without conflict, without empires growing and then collapsing like they always do; like ‘pump and dump’ graphs of corporations that have risen and fallen too. I’m not telling you lies. Please, name one that hasn’t been like that.

The ‘allowing and being allowed’ is not really a thing; it includes everything that is and anything that could be. And it is win-win for all; except from those few I told you before. That is why it works.


Does the government suppress freedom of speech?

Free speech can be ‘lost’ by speaking lies and half truths; particularly of the generalizing hostile/critical kind, that can be so common in ‘anti-‘ rhetorics.

That creates opposing factions that instead of trying to understand and be understood try to convince and to reduce each other’s freedom to speak, among other things.

And that can later on be reflected on governments as well, unless that’s where that process starts from in the first place.

Like ‘nature’ the government isn’t any particular entity(s). It is a vague, mysterious authority that is said to control all those things we refuse to control ourselves.

Basic rights

A liability of absolute freedom is that within it is included the freedom to be un-free. If somebody whacks another then that other’s freedom to live becomes hindered. Some basic rights and limitations can guarantee maximum freedom for minimum loss of freedom, so that we can be as free as possible while we associate with each other.

The only liability of applying those rights and limitations below would be that controlling others by means of force would be impossible; which is a rather nice liability.

This is a proposal I’ve thought up:

1. It’s nobody’s legal duty to communicate with anything/anybody (persons, books, literally anything). Communication (when wanted by all parties involved) cannot be hindered either. We could make a long list with types of communications that should neither be enforced nor hindered; for example rape is a sort of enforced sexual communication, as sexual senses are means of communication too. But an endless list is not needed if communication as a whole is considered a right and not an obligation.

2. It’s nobody’s legal duty to like anything/anybody. Liking (when wanted by all parties involved) cannot be hindered either.

3. It’s nobody’s legal duty to agree with anything/anybody (orders, advices, anything). Agreeing (when wanted by all parties) cannot be hindered either.

4. Offering work and money can only be done voluntarily. And nobody can hinder another from working nor from offering money.

5. All contracts of all sorts are completely null, for an agreement made in a specific time cannot be considered valid for any longer than all parties continue to agree with it. That is to say, a contract is an enforced agreement in time, and that violates #3 above.

6. Agreements can be made how the land of the planet becomes distributed. Beyond that point each land owner is completely free to do as he wishes with his given land.  Nobody but him/her are allowed to enter nor to otherwise interfere without the owner’s rote permission. Those who disagree with the agreements above are entitled to make other agreements on other chunks of land. Not all are obliged to agree over the same rules. And each chunk of land (now days called a country) can live by it’s all agreed upon rules; and if somebody no longer agrees with them he can move to another country. There must be enough countries for all types of agreements. And apparently, a country should be reserved for those who don’t agree to live by any rules at all.

Although each country can (potentially) have it’s own government, the above rights and limits should be watched by a neutral government. And a second neutral entity (the guardians) should make sure that government does apply those rules indeed. Should that government no longer be neutral it will get discharged.

Everyone must have the right to be in direct contact with the neutral government at any time from any place, so as to ask for assistance when needed. But precautions must be taken so that right wont be abused by people who’d waste that government’s time with false reports or other irrelevant things.

7. A country can decide to disagree with those rules above, and it should be free to do so. However, no resident can be held in that country without his free will, otherwise the neutral government will forcefully set him free.

8. Nobody can be held in any place without his will. Only if a person goes rogue (violates other’s rights) he can be limited in his own land, until the situation gets handled. Privacy without external interference will be the only equivalent of what is today called ‘punishment’, which is a rather counter-productive practice for both the violator and the violated.

One will have endless chances to redeem himself, which redeeming should be proportional to the damage done. However, redeeming will not be enforced.

9. The violating other’s rights will be the only case where one’s rights will be violated too, in order for seclusion to exist, and protect the rest from having their rights be violated. However, the right to privacy in one’s own land will under no circumstances be revoked for anyone.

10. As long as one does not violate the rights of others, he has full rights over himself –that is to say the controlling of his body, his thoughts, emotions, possessions –anything that is considered ‘his own’ and ‘himself’.

Two or more can agree to control or to be controlled each other, but only for as long and as much as they agree. A human being cannot be considered the property of another, regardless of age.

None of the above is meant to reduce the significance of common possessions and activities, of communication, love, agreements, associating with each other as friends, partners, lovers etc. But to rather ‘heal’ those things by making them voluntary; as I am convinced that when something becomes enforced it breeds problems and then another enforcement becomes needed in order to solve that, and more enforced measures breed needs for more enforced counter-measures, and those cycles never end, but in ashes. Thus I also see no point in fighting for any political ideology to dominate all ideologies. Thus, I’m not getting into details concerning economic systems. It is obvious not all want the same. But if each one and each group can have what they want then there wont be any problem, unless to control everyone and everything is what they actually want. Some have wanted that, but they cannot be allowed to bring that about at the expense of everybody else’s freedom.

It is obvious we are going through a period of transition. The globe used to be divided based on language and race, but that is now fading, and along with that older control methods are fading as well. The internet has even brought about alternative digital currencies that are -by far- superior to national currencies, and if left unchecked will certainly soon check national currencies (do you know you can get a debit card that automatically converts your bitcoins to $ and you can even withdraw from ATMs with it?). And even if that becomes suppressed by law, something new will soon pop-up. The globe is becoming united while on the same time more divided than ever on a political level. Now is the best time for something new to exist. We can have some significantly greater freedom of choices on both an individual and a social level, and a neutral authority to act as a referee and to ensure just that could be a good solution.

Profiting from another’s suffering

The number of professions that would exist if human beings needed nothing from each other would be much smaller, unless new professions were invented.

If the was no illness or if one could cure it by himself there would be no doctors and no pharmaceutical industries becoming some of the richest on the planet. If one didn’t need capital to start a business or if people were generally more wealthy, the banks couldn’t lend money. If there was no excess of unemployed people compared to available jobs, almost nobody would agree to work for peanuts. If there were no STDs condom sales would drop dramatically. If people got along with each other more they would need to visit counselors less. And if there weren’t thousands of laws written in archaic dialects that one ought to abide to without knowing them, most lawyers would be unemployed.

Of course, I’m not asserting that all those people want another to suffer so as to make money. A doctor might indeed care to heal another, and do so indeed. And the same is true about all other professions. And such people should be the only ones entitled to make any money out of their profession, at all. However, if one’s job, responsibility is to handle something and he doesn’t do that, but he pretends to do so while in actuality he perpetuates, exaggerates or even creates problems so as to make money, we get some unfortunate conditions being created. If everybody focused on being effective instead of making profit, and if they were evaluated based on their effectiveness and not based on their wealth, this would be a much happier place to for all to live in.

You don’t have choices but you can be free

To do something so another bad thing wont occur is as much of a choice as to do something so you wont get beaten or otherwise punished.

This is all the ‘freedom’ society currently preaches. This is how evil gains support. You try to avoid evil, and you support evil. And what do you know, either way you get betrayed.

There is vast difference between ‘choices’ and ‘freedom’. If you want to be free you need to create what to be, you need to be it, you need to get rid of choices. If you want choices you have to pick from what you’re given. And you might as well find the those two opposites you are offered with are from the same person, who is cowardice and dishonest enough to not directly threaten you with punishment in case you don’t do as he says, but attributes the punishment to an opposition of his own making.

About the freedom of speech to make another shut up

One would do another -and above all to himself- a great favor if he -instead of sneakily spying on and misinterpreting what he saw to others, as well as eagerly looking for things to accuse him for- actually discussed his disagreement(s) with the other (assuming he was open to discuss) or to thoroughly quit knowing him or to let him be, instead of forever fluctuating somewhere in-between.

Alas, one could also ‘enjoy’ the suffering of holding on to and multiplying his misunderstandings, so he can be excused for his attitude.

I don’t think it’s the misunderstood guy’s fair share of responsibility to resolve other’s misunderstandings -if and as long as they stubbornly chose to hold on to them and be hostile- as if he was guilty of something. Nor should he cease to exist nor to remain quiet, so that others wont -overtly or covertly- attack whenever he talks, media and the rest.

Is democracy pluralism?

Perhaps it could become –if democracy got modified.

But if the rule and opinions of the majority overshadow those of the rest, and if that majority is influenced by few, then it’s anything but that.

Logical fallacy: Why discuss an opinion when you can discredit and shut down that opinion’s source? Because that source is authoritarian and wrong.

So then, if only few, specific sources are not ‘authoritarian’ and ‘wrong’ -since we don’t get to know all the rest- pluralism is but a meaningless label.

And so you also get that prior to elections too: One side trying to find or exaggerate or invent filth about the other, while the other side’s opinions don’t become known or not as much. That is an obvious effort to hinder logic with emotional screens. You’re supposed to vote for a policy-maker, who is going to impose policy. You don’t care what he’s done with his wife, what his education level is, what his wealth is, how he dresses etc. You care about those policies. Yet, opposition -which is not necessarily a political opposition- often tries to hit on an emotional level. In short “that guy is bad” which is a generality and means about nothing.

So, if one tries to pull himself up by pulling the other down, what do you get? I’d say a rather barbaric state of affairs. This way it isn’t the best who wins, but the one who manages to have the least dirt piled on him, or somehow manages to compensate for that. And what if somebody is not willing to throw any dirt? Or let me rephrase that: what if somebody honestly tries to win based on his wits in making policy alone? Even if he manages to get elected, he will appear at the congress or parliament and the rest will start throwing very ripe tomatoes at him, whether they like his policies or not.

Is that pluralism? No! That is the reign of those who wish to destroy and perhaps couldn’t create anything but destruction themselves. It is one trying to get imposed upon the other. And you can have that done by one, by few as well as by everybody.

In actual pluralism one allows the other.

Now, that wouldn’t be as big an issue if it only occurred in parliaments and congresses. But when you gets whites not allowing blacks, Christians not allowing atheists, rich not allowing poor, this not allowing that and visa versa you have internal conflict. And you also have that on a personal level, as well –one thought checking the other, leading to no creative action but rather to only necessary action. To put that in more practical terms, to work so as to survive and not so as to offer something is based on necessity, not free will.


Unchallengeable right

Each one has the right to be unchalengeably right within and for himself. Groups have the right to be unchallengeably right over what they agree, with full awareness and consent what they agree over. That rules out trickery and enforcement.

Neither one nor many have the right to be right for another nor for others without their full awareness and consent.

Those who attempt that, lose their right over their own sovereignty. And it doesn’t even need to be taken away by another.

Those who attempt to take those person’s sovereignty away in turn, lose their own sovereignty too.

Fighting -whether it is obvious or not- is that process wherein one tries to take the other’s right away, while in actuality both give away their own, for doing so. Then they see the other as cause for having their right taken away, which in turn fuels them to perpetuate the process.

Agreements exist only for as long as participants knowingly agree. The only persistent agreements are those over lies and half-truths, for then -since no true agreement doesn’t actually exists- participants are not aware of their inherent freedom to agree or not.


I don’t want to open a topic that’s been talked about millions of times, and debate the same, taking one side or the other.

To the question’should there be equality or not?’ I’d ask in turn ‘equality in what?’

I think in order to have a fair life all should play by the same rules. You couldn’t have a basketball game wherein one is allowed to kick the ball, the other is allowed to bite other player’s ears off, and the rest are subjected to a strict referees rules, all that while the players were not sure which rules applied to whom. That would drive players mad.

And in every day life, if there should be a rule ‘all should make their own fortune’, or ‘all should abide to law’ or ‘all should be granted the same liberties’ then that should apply to all.

And if such rules applied to all, then vast changes would occur. For starters, mr Rockefeller’s sons would need to start making their own money from zero, and the financial system as we know it would change vastly.

I’ve hearing a lot about financial equality, racial equality and sexual equality. And so that is my answer: To be fair, all should play by the same rules.

Other than that, other than equal rights, hindrances and obligations, equality can have various other trap meanings.

In mathematics equal means ‘same in quantity’. And more broadly it also means same in quality as well. That equals to all being the same. To an extreme, that would mean that Spyros would look like this, and think like that, and act in this manner and everybody else ought to do the same, if such equality was to be forced. What would that add up to? Very limited liberties, since all ought to abide to what I am, do and have. Actually, you would really need to make robots out of people so they will all think the same, act the same, look the same, possess the same and so on. And of course, one couldn’t do that, if he hadn’t granted himself a position of authority above others so as to impose it.

Have you ever noticed that happening?