Short Spiel on Free Speech

Why do we want freedom of speech? It is a question you might think is obvious and usually, people who question this maxim of Free Speech are almost always deplatformed; As funny as that may seem. I will raise the question again anyway: why do we want freedom of speech? We want freedom of speech so that anyone can engage in dialogue. We want freedom of speech because we don’t want our speech restricted. We want freedom of speech to hear all ideas. We want freedom of speech so that people can express themselves without fear. We want freedom of speech because we couldn’t have conversations about freedom of speech without it. We want freedom of speech because we love our freedom.

We know why we want freedom of speech, but does this attempt at the ideal actually get us what we want? Do the consequences of adopting this rhetoric help or harm us? I think that freedom of speech is not only self-contradictory but the attempt or rhetoric and having it has been more harmful than helpful.

If people, all people, are allowed to speak freely we have course mean that they are heard. Data platform is not seized by the State or the public; That it is given protection. yet who is heard? Restricting who here’s what when is obviously against freedom of speech. Yet that’s exactly what any forum of debate and discussion does. What if people who showed the loudest are all that can be heard, it quickly becomes a situation in which that all the quieter voices are drowned out.

“Why not just create a separate venue then? It’s not that hard. People start their own news networks, their own channels in which to send information to. Freedom of speech is not reduced just because you weren’t allowed to speak on a particular platform. That’s just how the free marketplace of ideas works; Just because no one wants to buy into your crappy ideas doesn’t mean the market is any less free.”

Comparing it to the market was a good idea, why? Because who quantifies what a valid idea is on this Market. No one? Any idea is completely fine in this Market? What about planning to install a dictator? That’s fine? Okay, what if it was a plan to rape your mother? That doesn’t count? It is regulated then. The moment you tell me I can’t say ‘fire’ in a theatre is the moment you see that freedom of speech is an ideal that can actively work against the freedom of others time and speech and their general safety. People usually are okay with giving that up. Usually, they will say that if it isn’t an immediate and present threat than it should be allowed to be said. But why draw the arbitrary line of safety at that point? And what exactly classifies as something being an immediate and present threat? The state in this instance decides the something fits that description, but why do they get to regulate the market? You know, the entity that has decided what can be said and what cannot be said? If you don’t like them and their Ruling on what can be ‘freely’ said or not? Too bad.

“This is Free Speech though I promise. I mean it all comes down to her and doesn’t it? If some speech is harmful then it shouldn’t be spoken. It doesn’t even really count to speech at all anyway.  after all, you’re not really trying to engage in the discussion by raising a threat or by planning to install a dictator or reinstate slavery.”

Yet those are all extremely controversial. Some people might be okay with some of those statements others not. Which means we’re back at the beginning, because of authority manages what can and can’t be said explicitly and obviously, this is not free speech. When you call restricted and regulated markets ‘free’, you do the most harm to yourself and others. ‘Freedom becomes slavery’ as the saying goes; it is a form of doublethink. I would rather that we know when we are being restricted and regulated. I would rather know that I don’t have freedom of expression. I would rather know that I was in a restricted and regulated market and not a free one. Don’t tell me lies, this is not a free market of ideas.

This is a command economy.

I asked for the Authority in this economy to be decentralized. I asked for this economy to become much more similar to a free market. A free market where what is considered a threat to my freedom can be dealt with by me, by us. ‘Us’, as in, each individual person. I won’t sit around while someone wants to take my freedom away. I find the installation of a dictator did we have to write to me in the same way I see someone threatening to rape my mother. I won’t stand for either. Why should I not use the freedom I still have to retaliate? There is no good reason. Speech I find threatening, violent, and destructive, is my concern. Purely my own. you will not have it. You will not take it. It is my property. Just as it is yours. You need only break your chains, dispel your spectres, and seize it.


TransAgeism: An Exercise in Incredulity

If you have been referred to this article by a friend or family member, it was probably because you might have felt and voiced your thoughts as deeply against the transgender movement. Afterall, “everything can’t be a social construct, right?” Wrong. What if I said the craziest thing to you right now? What if I said that not only gender and race but age was a social construct? I know, crazy! So let’s imagine two people having this conversation going to watch a movie at a theatre. The first a man, Pyrrho and the second a woman, Xanthippes.  Continue reading TransAgeism: An Exercise in Incredulity

On Contracts and States

Anarchists often hear the argument that they simply want to regress states to the point that some local authority acts as the state. That these local communities hold the monopoly on legitimate use of violence for which everybody acts. This is incorrect. There are many ways that anarchists speak about what makes their anarchism anarchistic, but there are three lines of thinking they often follow: individual sovereignty, abolishment of a hierarchy of power, freedom of association (voluntary association). None of these three modes of thought allow for states to exist since all states are an involuntary monopoly on the use of force which necessarily violates individual sovereignty and necessarily puts the decrees of the state above the individual in a hierarchy of power. Continue reading On Contracts and States

The World as Nihil: Uncertainty Principle Of Objects

What are objects? It is a question we often don’t ask. An intuitive idea that we have about the world and a natural part of the way we think. Understanding what objects are might tell us a little about the world and what we can know about it.  Continue reading The World as Nihil: Uncertainty Principle Of Objects

The Comparisons of The Stay at Home Parent: Development of Gender Dependency

Oh, this is a long title. Most of you probably decided to leave just from this title. All of my writing is a work in progress. I never complete a blog post it is only put on pause as I develop my ideas to add to ones I wrote about before. This blog post actually follows from a line of thinking that I had to deal with in a conversation with a gender essentialist that happened to be a libertarian as well (a more true libertarian, one that desired to go back to the roots of man/woman/child/adult/people, one that believed people should be left to themselves and that is the best way to organise for all). Continue reading The Comparisons of The Stay at Home Parent: Development of Gender Dependency

The New Radicals: Defending The Status Quo

Jordan Peterson, Ian Morris, Steven Pinker, Francis Fukuyama. What do these four men have in common? A brilliant defence of the Status Quo, unlike anything we have seen in a long time. I call these men Neohobbesians. Why? Because they defend the monster cannibalizing the world. Because instead of a monster they believe this creature is a benevolent angel that will bring us to new heights unlike we have ever seen before. There are tons more men like these, but they are the ones we are most familiar with. And who oppose them, who oppose what Peterson would say is an “insanely functional society”? How crazy do you have to do that? Not very, in fact, the top intellectuals of our age have been doing so for so long people barely have hope in the establishment. Those of the old guard who “imagine an alternative to the ruling ideology (global capital, inequality, civilization, the state)” are numerous. I am going to pick five (yes, I admit unfair battle but there are so many it is hard to choose). Fredy Perlman, David Graeber, Kevin Carson, Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Zizek. Every one of the ‘old’ guards remains alive today except for the first one who departed too early. Continue reading The New Radicals: Defending The Status Quo

Zeks of the World Disband

There once was a time when humans were not so stuck in their ways. What happened? What corrupted us to the point where we are the Zeks of this monstrous creature, this carcass that has eradicated the communities that lived before us? This monstrous creature that has turned our lands into a dangerous and darkling plain? To most, I must be speaking nonsense because I have not explained what these words mean. What is a Zek? What is this monstrous creature you speak of? And whatever do you mean that we are stuck? The title lends some clues. Some call this creature the Leviathan, others call it the State, I call it all these things but a good common name for it is civilization.

Continue reading Zeks of the World Disband