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.

Free will and values

You must have heard -more than once- about how values limits freedom, and about how in actuality there are no values and that they are all a product of oppressive religion. Without commenting on whether or not values exist, that pretended freedom from values is utter bullshit. For the same people who preach that also preach that we need to hire more police because our survival is threatened, as we can’t get along with each other. They are among the first ones to point the finger that another or others are guilty ‘wrong’ things. What’s the upset for and what’s so wrong is there is no right as wrong (no values)?

Travel to any place and time wherein people couldn’t get along with each other, wherein they stole from each other, raped, cheated and you will also find harsh oppressive governments as well as general oppression from one to another.

If all could be trusted to stick to some basic rules, we would never need any police. And we have police not because we don’t stick to some basic rules, but only because few of us don’t.

Values don’t suppress freedom. Values are organized into an hierarchy; that is to say some are more basic than others. The one most basic of all is free will, self determination and it is the one value most hated by police-state fanboys and girls. They say ‘if you have free will you’re going to kill, steal blah blah’. And of course by saying ‘you’ they mean themselves. Others say that free will can’t exist at all, and it is only a delusion, and again they only speak for themselves. A peculiarity of freedom is that it doesn’t have to be, to exist and that is true for free will too. Forced permanent existence is not freedom you see; it is a sort of unfreedom. And free will is not something all are willing to exert. Why? Because they would kill and steal and blah blah, they think.

Below free will, self determination we have other rules. And they are ‘below’ because they are a product of free will. Some see -for example- a commitment between two partners as a limitation, as oppression. And indeed some have practiced it like that (for financial and other reasons). But it doesn’t have to be that. Two can enjoy to play by that rule of sticking together without feeling their will violated, for it is their will to do it. But they should be able to exit that game any time if it is their will to do so, as the forced existence of something is not in alignment with the first rule of free will.

Although two or more people can make arrangements with each other, agree over new rules, values; each one has his own and under no circumstances should he violate them because he sees somebody else doing so too, nor because somebody else says that his values are not valid.

Although it doesn’t appear so, it is far more important for one to be alright, aligned with himself than to be that with others. In fact, if one is in conflict with himself he has harder times with others too, and visa versa.

One of the first things aspiring revolutionary dictators aim at, is the values of a person, a couple a group. He aims to corrupt them, to bring about chaos and to impose his own and inconsistent values in place of them, that will of course be thoroughly enforced, even in the name of ‘freedom’ if he is too dishonest. Don’t be naive so as to buy that. You know what yours are. You know when your own actions make you feel good and when they don’t, without additives -like drugs- that are aimed are hiding your feelings from yourself.

Be your own compass and you wont be mislead. And you will never need anybody’s guidance.

‘The power of words’

Words have no power but the power one grants him by himself. And that power is valid for oneself. They appear to have ‘objective’ power only for as long and as much as we agree they have power.

If somebody spoke to you in a language you didn’t understand, he then couldn’t control you either, for words are control. You read or hear a word and you imagine something, and that imagination is how you interpret that word. It is your own imagination, your own interpretation. It is not the word itself. And if that word insults you, it is your own imagination again. So you see words can become a method to use ones imagination against oneself too.

Somebody says another that he is ‘stupid’ and the other feels bad about it for the next 15 years. But why? He would answer it is because of what he was told, because of the sounds somebody uttered at him (a spoken word) but it isn’t that. It is the significance(s) he adds to that sound he hears, himself.

We can become lazy enough to automatically interpret (googly or badly) all the words we read and we hear; and then through that automatic interpretation of our own we can also have automatic trouble. ‘Don’t read that, it’s bad.’ Why is it bad? It is bad if you think of something bad.

The instances that the average person’s survival is threatened by physical force (violence), starvation, illness are a tiny minority compared to the instances one can think his survival is threatened –all because of words. And he can have his thinking (and subsequently his body too) be driven by words to such a degree he can be thoroughly controlled by them.

It is not random that black magic is connected to words and other symbols. Symbols, like letters and words have no significance of their own either; but the significance one adds to them himself. If you draw a pentagram or a cross nothing happens to the universe, but if you interpret it something can happen; and it will be because of you and not because of the lines you’ve drawn.

Similarly, if you see a picture or even a movie and it has an effect on you, it will be the effect you create for yourself to have, the significance you yourself ass to that picture or movie. They themselves deliver no effect at all. It is all your own. And phobias and other adverse reactions can be triggered like that. And one can see a woman too and think of specific things; but those things, those thoughts wont be attached on the woman, but only exist in his own thinking. That we think certain things look good or bad is not a matter of what we look at, it is a matter of the significance we add to them ourselves.

Why am I bringing all that up? Because if you could quit putting significance onto things that bear none of their own you could discover ‘things’ are quite difference than you had been thinking all along. It wouldn’t be a world limited by the significance of words, but a world full of possibilities, and those possibilities are you.

A balance between acceptance and causality

I am very enthusiastic about this discovery, as I’ve been struggling with it the past few days. And although I don’t think it’s of much use to describe something rough, I think it can be useful to know when something rough has been dealt with and a lesson has been learned.

There is a misconception that acceptance means inability to make something happen. And in politics that is called apathy. You get overwhelmed by something and you accept it and that thing then controls you and you don’t control it, and you feel you ‘cannot do anything about it’ or so it seems.

It is not true. If you could accept all portions of your life as they are right now, not only would you not be unable to make something happen, but you would be in alignment (not resisting) with what you make happen, you would be in alignment with what you are.

This doesn’t have to be a process. It can be as simple as to decide to be that. It doesn’t take any analysis how things are. All one has to do is to accept what is no matter what that is.

Free will, the right thing and justice

The so called ‘right thing’ and ‘justice’ are not inherent ideas one is born with. Those are ideas one is taught throughout his life.

One ‘has’ his own impulse(s) what to be, what to create; and those may even vary from person to person. In fact he doesn’t ‘have’ them anywhere but he creates them.

The ‘how’s and ‘why’s one does not stick to his own intentions are not even related to what one’s environment does to him. It is solely related to what he does to himself or even to what he doesn’t do.

You must have heard of Crowley’s ‘do what you will’ motto. And I bet it must have crossed most people’s mind that ‘if one does what he wills, he will then harm others’. So then free will takes an evil significance. That notion can also be found on political talk as well, wherein the so called ‘free market’ is a source of evil in society, and that it must be checked, for it causes damage. A quick question and a bracket: In countries that are being regulated by thousands of laws, so many laws one needs to dedicate his whole life and career to learn (like when one becomes a lawyer) what is the significance of the words ‘free market’? I don’t see any point in arguing whether that market is good or bad since the term ‘free market’ is false in the first place. There just isn’t such a thing.

Similarly, an individual’s ‘free will’ is an absurd thing to say if that person is not indeed driven by his own will, but ‘freely’ drives himself based on what he has been taught in his life by his environment. And I’m not going to fight for anyone’s rights to his own freedom, if that freedom is not his own.

One can create his own free will, and that is the only true will he will ever have. Any other will that stems from anything other than himself is not his own, and it is not anything to be fought for. It is masochistic to fight for people’s rights to be driven by others, and it is hypocritical to call that ‘freedom’.

How does one lose his ‘free will’? One never really loses that as -like I said before- he doesn’t ‘have’ it anywhere. One creates it. And it can be his own creation too to be driven by the will of others. But why would one do that? The answer (or rather answers) can be very complex, and I don’t know them all. But I could point out some.

Some have been very inventive in inventing tricks to have themselves as well as others abandon their own free will. A popular method is to force or to hinder people from being and from doing certain things, and then put them to chant that it is their ‘freedom’ to do that. They say stuff like it is not freedom to have a single sexual partner. But what if that’s what one wants? Would he be more free if he did what he was told instead? Obviously, neither myself nor anybody else could tell you what your own will is or should be, for then it would be my own will and not your own. But if you did inherit my own will and called it your own, you would introduce a lie within your thinking, and I would then control you without you even knowing it. It is very different when two freely agree to have the same will, and when one tricks or forces another into thinking what he is told is ‘freedom’.

Regardless what one does to another, it is more important to pay attention to what one does to himself, for without one’s will to abandon his own will, that cannot occur. One needs to agree with another to have that happen. And before he even agrees with that, one’s loyalty to his own self, to his own will must be fragile.

One can have much more control over himself and over his life, his existence, his experiences than what one usually thinks. And for as long as he is shy in controlling himself, his life, he has to assert to himself that something else controls him, that something else forces him to do things, that something else deceives him, that something else doesn’t allow him to be himself. He can say that society controls him, or that his genes control him, or that his mom controls him through his subconscious. But if he indeed manages to create such a thing for himself, it will be by his own free will –it will be his very own creation to be controlled by something other than himself.

If you’re afraid to be what you will, to do what you will, to have what you will because bad things will occur, that’s what you do. And the irony is that bad things occur the more you abandon your own will, for you then make those things happen yourself. The further away you stray from yourself, the more you try to stop yourself from straying.

It is not true that one -having free will- works against others. It is true that the more one works against himself, the more he denies himself and his will, the more he assigns the bad things that happen to him to others and the more he consequently turns against others, as well. Even if one doesn’t agree with another, he will never feel he has to attack him unless he thinks his own survival is depended upon attacking him, which is -in most cases, if not all- entirely untrue.

Free beings that don’t have to connect with each other, can connect with each other. Free beings that don’t hinder themselves from connecting with each other, can connect with other. Free beings can co-operate or not. But with enforced connection, disconnection, co-operation, and chaos occurs. It is within the boundaries of un-free will that relative free will can cause trouble, otherwise one’s independence is guaranteed by his own free will, as one’s life experiences don’t have to be another’s too.

How to get rid of chaos in your life? Exert your own free will over it, with no remorse.

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.

Real hater

It is within the nature of fighting and of war to consider that the opponent who fights you is a bad guy. But what short-sighted people don’t notice is what their opponent thinks of them.

A real hater will not hate what is bad about you, but what is good. And that is -most often- not the case in war, in divorces and so on.

Everybody knows this, but few admit it to each other and themselves. If you wish to see how a person subjected to that knows this, notice how he might be afraid to be and do actual good by any means. One might not appear afraid to brag how he/she has fooled and gotten laid with a large number of people who were unaware of being fooled, but another who might merely wish to do it -not for any bad reason- might be afraid to do it. That is how the majority becomes a hostage to the minority that undermines it; from that perspective, to do good is to do bad.

The less free -internally- a person is, the more he imitates -badly- those who are freer. And you might find people who appear super-compassionate, brave, beautiful and so on, to be quite the opposite and try hard to conceal it. That is how such concepts get a bad name. And that is a way how the rest become unwilling to be those things, and they also become less tolerant, more irritated by those things –they become confused.

It is very common in today’s society to confuse those who -through their luck, skill, interest, work…- manage to become rich, and others who become rich through other’s misfortune. Thus people become divided into those who think nobody should ever be allowed to become rich, and that all those who become rich are good folks. What does that add up to? It adds up to honest people needing money and licenses to work, to pay taxes, and to some dishonest people to get unfair legal or illegal advantages over the rest, leading to monopolies and so on.

Work is -in fact- offering and it is not taking. An offering cannot be but voluntary, for otherwise it is slavery and theft. The same is true for anything else good that a person projects to others –beauty, intelligence and so on. An intelligent person is not one who makes the rest feel dumb, but rather (freely) shares his intelligence with others, thus making others more intelligent too. You will always find those who make others feel dumb being very unintelligent themselves, even if they can solve some equations. Intelligence you see is not about numbers nor about parroting book pages. Intelligence in life is that which leads to more and better life, and less intelligence brings one and those who agree with him closer to death.

Never hesitate to be and to do that which is good from your own perspective for another might disapprove. You might -or not- incite some real hate that way, but it is totally worth it, for those who will hate it are not up to any good.

Of course, deep down the basic enemy one can have is himself, or rather the denial of himself. That is why, how people make a good (for them) thought and a split of a second later make the opposite. One essentially opposes himself that way, and if he doesn’t do that nobody else can do it to him, and if he buys the fake ‘good intentions’ of others that are meant to keep him down he will also do it to himself.

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.

Justice

Justice is not about what is right or wrong. That is ethics. It is not about the police and about courts. It can exist whether those things exist or not.

Justice is ideas, sets of rules about how we can co-exist harmonically. One could argue whether the police and courts do that or not, but that’s not the topic now. I’m referring to the original meaning of justice.

Justice is related to what one gives and takes. It is asserted that there must be some balance between what one gives and takes. In justice one would not be expected to be permanently kind and receive hostility in return, that would be unfair. Similarly, what would not be expected to produce 10 bricks and get paid for the price of 1 brick (nor visa versa). That would be unfair too.

Justice is then about balance. It is neither about being kind nor hostile.

Justice is not inherent to the universe. We know from physics if you hit a wall the wall then hits you back. And we know of the old say ‘an eye for an eye’. But that is not a rule to make us peacefully co-exist. To demand from one to sit and get beaten all his life without defending himself doesn’t lead to peace, either; it leads to suppression.

If justice is freely agreed upon and correctly applied it nullifies harm and multiplies benefit for all willing participants. To be fair, if one caused harm he should make up for it, and if one offered something valuable he should be rewarded for it, in an analogous manner. If one broke a neighbor’s window he should get a new one, install it as well as somehow compensate for causing that trouble. And if one was kind to another, that other should be kind back to him too. That way, nobody could be a victim and nobody could be a perpetrator either. That way, imprisonment would be unnecessary.

So you see, present society has forgotten about justice too. Present society has swapped justice with suppression (get hit but don’t hit back), punishment and underpaid workers. Thus, harm gets multiplied and benefit gets nullified.

A neat way to have people get very upset about justice is to ask or demand from them to be fair and then be unfair to them in return. And some know that very well -they know the upset they cause that way- and they pretend they don’t understand, for upset is what they try to cause, as well as apathy regarding justice. A person who ignores how badly he treats you and yet demands to be treated nicely aims there; he tries to suppress you. A person who ignores your good offerings, and instead of that criticizes them like they were wrong, aims there too. In my opinion it is completely vain to expect or demand justice from a dishonest person who wishes to harm; to set double standards about justice is harm by itself. It is as vain as to be nice to such a person expecting to receive something genuinely good back. Odds are such a person will never acknowledge anything truly good about another. And in my opinion such people should just be spotted, and no further attention nor effort should be wasted on them.