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.