Revealing The Censor

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

Anarchy in a community means that censorship is not an acceptable practice.

Copenhagen street art.

Censorship is the suppression of expression, using force. Usually, the censor is unidentified, and not answerable to those being censored.

This is dissimilar to the moderating of an activity. The role of a moderator is to limit the conversation visibly, according to the rules agreed on by the participants. And every action of the moderator is answerable to them!

The censor is, in principle, an authoritarian ruler, judge, and executioner, invulnerable to feedback.

Anarchy, in the context of community, can present itself in any number of possible social structures, but all of which will follow the same rule. All interactions are free. Not only voluntary, and definitely not coerced. But free!

Free, as in any person can, at any time, do what they wish, as long as they cause no physical harm or threat to another. No force can be inflicted on them. Even if agreement was previously made, such as a written contract, further disagreement, or nulling of contract, does not justify the use of force against them.

Those who betray trust, will simply not be trusted again - until forgiven, and that is the only moral strategy in a free society.

Even within private property, such as a house, where the owner can - if necessary - use force to remove people; those people are still free, and cannot be coerced or threatened, just for voluntarily entering the private property of another. It is immoral to abuse a guest.

To conclude, there is no place for censorship within any group, community, or organization. In order to moderate activities, methods of refereeing must be applied; while those who moderate are explicitly not above the same community standards.

It is only in this way that all community members are properly represented.

Freedom Versus Liberty

Am I free to do as I wish?

No. The answer is always no. There are degrees of freedom to every person, and these are defined by natural and social pressures. A person cannot be completely free, and just the same a person cannot be completely without freedom. We always have a choice, even if that choice is not to our liking.

What is liberty, then?

Both words mean freedom, but liberty is used in connotation with persecution and defense. To have liberty is to be without persecution. To have no unfriendly forces putting pressure on your choices. We can either be with liberty or without it. Unlike freedom, liberty has no degrees. A liberated people have no enemies forcing their choices.

Can I be both free and liberated?

Yes. While we cannot force our enemies into surrender, and thus changing their opinions of us, we can find ways to make their efforts not worthwhile. Being liberated from external social forces, by design, now we maximize our freedoms. Being free means to feel that your most important choices are your own; including daily actions, social interactions, professional work and self-care. A liberated people can continue to design their environment, so that not only liberty is kept, but also that individual freedoms are enhanced.

How can a people enhance their freedom, then?

Just as we would put a fence (a physical negative incentive) to keep aggressors at bay, we would also put social rewards (a social positive incentive) to encourage non-aggressive behavior within our friendly circles. The former, making unwelcome outsiders feel that handling the fence is not worthwhile the catch beyond that fence. The latter, making valuable friends and family encouraged to behave positively by rewarding them constantly - not by agreement, but by emotional reward.

A romantic fantasy...

Free to live as you wish with all that you need,
while kept Liberated from aggressors in a remote and inaccessible place.