Practical (Objective) Freedom And Speech

Objective freedom is defined by the freedom to make choices in a physical world. This worldview is logical, consistent and it can be applied to the real world in practical ways. Deciding social behaviours and writing laws based on the subjective worldview described above would—and has—created chaos and instability. This chaos and instability arises from the mental gymnastics and hypocrisy that are required to accommodate such a worldview.

According to those who practice and preach objective freedom, emotional pain and suffering are natural consequences of being free and making choices. In fact, there is no remedy for the hardships that may be experienced by an individual's right to say offensive things. Nor should a remedy ever be attempted.

The same applies across all laws and government. Under no circumstances should a government attempt to enforce subjective laws and subjective ideas of freedom. Freedom can only be measured by choices, opportunities and the tangible outcomes that result from them. Attempting to measure freedom by feelings and emotions will only lead to tyranny.

Choosing to be free of negative stimuli involves suppressing another individual's right to make choices in the physical world. By all means, an individual should always be free to try and rid themselves of such feelings, but never by involving government and lynch mobs.





Making Judgments Based On Culture

All cultures are different. There is no debate to be had, since the difference in cultures is the entire basis of multi-culturalism. The value that progressives place on multi-culturalism is derived from the differences that exist among all of the global cultures. We're told that we should accept these differences and respect them, which is an undeniable and direct acknowledgement of those differences. This means that no one, particularly progressives, can deny that some cultures are vastly different.

The idea of equality, in some ways, is a denial of differences, whether those differences exist among races, sexes or cultures. In the same breath, we are told that all cultures are equal—or should, at least, be treated equally. That's fair and should never change inside of our borders. All people should, always, be treated equally under the law. However, vast differences in cultural beliefs and practices should always be factored into certain kinds of decision-making—namely, when it comes to immigration.

Laws of a country apply to the citizens of the country, not to outsiders. Therefore, immigration laws can fairly and justly discriminate based on cultural differences and practices. As for free speech, laws within a country can treat all people equally while continuing to afford citizens a right to free speech and expression. There is no dichotomy unless you have a globalist worldview and believe that multi-cultural laws should be adopted and enforced globally.

The United Nations will try and inevitably fail to enforce and implement such laws globally, because nationalist movements are rising up everywhere to stop the UN's agenda. Ultimately, the will of the people will triumph and the globalist, anti-national sentiment will collapse.

When cultural practices endorse and encourage violence, authoritarianism and insanity, we as citizens, taxpayers and voters have a right to reject them. There is no debate to be had. Those democratic rights are on full display around the world right now. Culture is a representation of collective mentality and collective beliefs, so when a person comes from a particular culture or has shown to practice a culture that is in direct opposition to freedom, free speech and personal liberty, that person should not be allowed to enter.

Speech within our borders should always be protected and enforced by objective laws, not by subjective whims. This means that laws cannot be written around feelings, emotions and the effects that speech might have on an individual's subjective views about “freedom”. All humans, when within our borders, should be protected from physical harm. Words are not a form of physical harm and free speech is an important tenet of democracy. Open debate and wide open dialogue are fundamental in the democratic process, even when they devolve into prejudiced, hateful or incendiary discourse. As long as such discourse carries on without violence, it should be free.

The purpose of law enforcement is to uphold peace and civility under all circumstances. When law enforcement stretches into speech suppression, we no longer have freedom and laws no longer have value. When anyone breaches the code of civility by inflicting physical harm on another person, our existing laws become just as relevant as they would be in any other circumstance. Suppressing speech is always unnecessary, because our current and existing laws are designed to protect all of us from physical assault—regardless of race, sex or ethnicity.

Cultural information is as important as any information when enforcing immigration and making personal judgments. To uphold free speech, individual liberty and freedom of thought, this can never change. Some cultures want to physically destroy us, so the onus falls on us to protect ourselves and our freedoms.

Our only weapon is democracy. Our only vehicle is free speech.