If Free Speech Had A Purpose, Would You Recognize It?-This Your 1St Right

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ChristopherABrown, Aug 31, 2014.

  1. #21 Runningw235, Sep 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2014
     
     
    The purpose of free speech is the recognition of self-ownership. If free speech is not allowed, ownership of my life and person is compromised, and everything else is soon to follow. The concept of natural rights was inherent in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. I hope this is spelled out enough for you. I've said it three times now, so please don't tell me to wake up or engage in critical thinking. 

     
  2. How about confirming you are a sincere American by posting your agreement and acceptance of the root purpose of free speech as being to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?

    Show you are responsible for ownership of yourself by securing the right to work with others to share and understand information vital to your survival.
     
  3.  
    Why should any of us feel an obligation to fulfill this demand?
     
    Maybe Runningw235 isn't an American, does that mean that his/her understanding of free speech is impaired by his/her nationality/geographic affiliation or that Americans take a higher priority in this conversation?
     
    Why is there such a need to tie nationality to this when we are discussing a universal principle?
     
  4. #24 ChristopherABrown, Sep 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2014
    Firstly, it is prime natural law relating to social structure of peaceful and adapting anarchy. Secondly it supports the method of creating such an anarchy by creating a foundation of agreement that, if expanded, can lawfully and peacefully alter or abolish the abusive, oversize federal government. Thirdly creating a political environment were smaller and smaller government can be effected by a majority which has anarchical tendencies empowered by their agreement upon natural law, rendering government unessesary.

    Since it is natural law of peaceful adapting social structure we are talking about, national affiliation does not matter. The reason it is more important to Americans is because the constitution is based in the Declaration of Independence where prime natural law is converted to rights of the republic and the constitution following implements "alter or abolish" as Article V.
    No other nation has that so related by legal process to prime natural law.

    Americans have that universal principle woven into legal process which citizens can invoke with agreement upon the principle. Other nations do not have that.
     
  5. #25 Account_Banned283, Sep 11, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
    If free speech had a ''purpose'', that is, if it was meant to be used to achieve some singular end or goal, then it would cease to be ''free'' - the clue is in the phrase. -_-
     
  6. Selectivity exposes intent.

    Read, you will find "root purpose". It is the ultimate purpose until survival is completely assured, then evolution becomes the ultimate purpose.
     
  7. #27 Account_Banned283, Sep 11, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
     
     
    My intention was to highlight your mistake. (Or was it? Maybe I'm an Illuminati hired disinformationist).
     
     
    Free speech has an ultimate root purpose.  It goes back to the very reason for a humans and other animals making sounds to communicate a warning to the others of their species.

     
    You're conflating ''free speech'' with ''communicating a warning'', one is an inborn right/ethical principle, the other is an action that is borne out for the achievement of a particular purpose, survival.
    </div>
     
  8. #28 ChristopherABrown, Sep 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2014
     
    I do not think it is as simple as conflation. 
     
    The origin of the root purpose of free speech as an advanced social concept reaches back to our animal instincts; in that as animals, anything interfering with communicating a warning; equals the threat being warned of because it obliterates awareness of it.  Therein are the ethical issues underlying the principle of the right.
     
    After all of that; do you accept and agree that the root purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?
     
  9. A software glitch will not allow me to edit that post to add;
     
    After survival is assured, the purpose reverts to the right to express whatever is needed or wanted.
     
  10.  
     
    I don't owe you or anyone else a confirmation that I'm a "sincere American".  :laughing:
     
  11.  
     
    Your premise isn't very specific. The purpose for whom? Do you mean the most important purpose, or can there only be one? 
     
    I don't disagree with anything you said. I believe the right to communicate vital information among ourselves stems from self-ownership. If I own myself and other people own themselves, we can voluntarily cooperate for mutual benefit with regard to resisting tyranny and otherwise.
     
    Your condescension is misguided and unproductive. 
     
  12.  
    It is that simple, free speech and a warning communication refer to different things.
     
     
    After all of that; do you accept and agree that the root purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?
     
    No, not if you're referring to free speech as it is commonly understood - in that case it has no ''root purpose'', it is merely defined as the right to speak freely -  if you're referring to the origination of communication, and what motivation or occasion first brought it into existence - it's an impossible question.
     
  13.  
    Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
     
     
    LOL
     
  14.  
     
    Can't say I have. 
     
  15.  
    Then the only safe thing is to consider you an insincere American, if others feel a need to unify with sincere Americans.
     
    Sincere Americans have no problem with the purpose of free speech.  They feel a sense of obligation to deal with each other sincerely and openly when it comes to defending the constitution and the principles of it.  The NWO agents will never accept it so it is a natural and necessary test. 
     
    It is your choice. 
     
    This is the internet and things MUST be different here if they are going to work for us.  There is a massive cognitive infiltration and without this test there is no way to know the difference.
     
  16. #36 ChristopherABrown, Sep 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2014
     
    I'm referring to the root purpose as in natural law and constitutional intent.  It is an uncommon understanding because the infiltration of government has assured such things are not taught in schools.  It requires critical thinking and a passion for justice and defense of natural law rights.
     


     
    I've stated it is natural law of our social instincts.  When there is a threat to life, everyone focuses on ending it because the right has the prime purpose, rights generally serve that purpose.  SImple.  No one else seems to have a problem with that.  Being responsible for our self ownership and respecting others need of the same dictates that we all respect that communication assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood.
     
    If you do not know of the threat, you might think what I'm doing is misguided.  There is no way dealing with cognitive infiltration can be productive, so this is the ONLY productive thing that can be done.  However if you do not know about that, you will not understand what I'm doing.
     
    Do you agree and accept that the root purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?
     
  17. Chris, you are turning this thread into a situation where we are either with you or against you - this undermines the purpose of freedom of expression (the uninhibited sharing of information) and creates a hostile atmosphere.
     
    This is also what the powers that shouldn't be love - division amongst the underclass and in-fighting that impedes any real progress or unity. I think you are taking a highly counterproductive approach to moderating/guiding this thread and it upsets me that you can't see this.
     
  18.  
    The NWO would want people to think that and that is what cognitive infiltration is all about.  Either you have the experience and knowledge to recognize these things or you do not.  Either you understand that the underclass is infiltrated with imposters or you do not.
     
    And BTW, it is not me, it is the constitution that those failing to agree are against, BY DEFAULT.  It is natural law principle they reject.  Cognitive infiltration would want it to appear as if I'm creating conflict when in realty those posting who are perhaps pretending that such a thing as a purpose of free speech is not acceptable or constitutional are the ones creating division and a hostile environment.  I'm simply standing for what will work to oppose tyranny with unity.
     
    It upsets me that people make assumptions that would normally be okay, in an abnormal situation, because they are not aware of cognitive infiltration and how it works.
     
    How will an anarchy work where the people do not respect that communication, speech, the natural law right does not have a fundamental social purpose of assuring information vital survival is shared and understood?
     
  19.  
     
    I told you in another post that I agree with a lot of what you have said, but look at it from another perspective. 
     
     
    But, yet again, you call someone "an insincere American", "lacking critical thinking", and "cognitively infiltrated" when you know nothing about the person or their experience.
     
    We have not established any concrete disagreement, but through your choice of words, you have divided us. Why do you think nobody is listening to you?
     
    What you have said so far:
     
    "[SIZE=11.8181819915771px]So wake up to this fact and consider staying on topic and conducting some critical thinking PLEASE."[/SIZE]
    "[SIZE=11.8181819915771px]235 deserves that language"[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]"[/SIZE][SIZE=11.8181819915771px]How about confirming you are a sincere American"[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]"[/SIZE][SIZE=11.8181819915771px]Show you are responsible for ownership of yourself"[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]"[/SIZE][SIZE=11.8181819915771px]understand information vital to your survival."[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]"[/SIZE][SIZE=11.8181819915771px]Then the only safe thing is to consider you an insincere American"[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]"[/SIZE][SIZE=11.8181819915771px]If you do not know of the threat, y[/SIZE][SIZE=11.8181819915771px]ou might think what I'm doing is misguided."[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]"There is no way dealing with cognitive infiltration can be productive"[/SIZE]
     
     
    I don't explicitly disagree with you, but you have done a great job  at destroying unity, the exact concept your purport to advocate.
     
    "From this arise other human rights. The rights to life, to thought, to action are all implied in the right of self-ownership-and so is the right to free speech. All these rights are constrained only by the corresponding rights of others. As Murray Rothbard, the libertarian economist, once wrote, “Not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.” -Amit Varmit; -Murray Rothbard
     
    If my self-ownership is not recognized, my right to free speech is not recognized, and thereby my right to communicate with others in order to resist tyranny and further my efforts in survival (as you correctly point out) is null and void.
     
     
    Our concepts at their core are not mutually exclusive, but  your use of speech, ironically, has indeed created division.
     
  20. #40 ChristopherABrown, Sep 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2014
    What you think of as unity is not unity. It is simple agreement on arbitrary aspects of politics or philosophy. It's a warm, happy useless space that the NWO wants to cultivate. There is a degree of confusion underlying it separating it from functional political activism. No basic strategy.

    I'm talking about hard core political unity based in natural law. The constitution and legal process that is quite complete as a strategy. It is very useful unity. I cannot conceive of any unity other than it getting us out of the situation we are in. You might not be aware of that situation in its entirety. I am aware of quite a bit of it.

    The right to life is supported by the purpose of free speech. All rights are in service to life. This is the kind of confusion I work to dispel because no legal process can come out of it. This is basic constitutional intent and it must be very clearly held by many people in agreement to be effective.
     

Share This Page