I agree with this ^ .
What I was referring to was the taking by collective force. Unless that collective force is use to take away the free speech, which was not mentioned in the two paragraphs, it wouldn't apply. I took the post to address property, food etc.
OK, I can see how you might see it that way and you would be correct. My comments back to TOS were a counterpoint to his assertion to Steve about men having other men for lunch or in other words, men asserting conquest over other men. It was also to show a point that TOS and I could disagree (in a manner of speaking but not really) and yet nobody had anybody for lunch. This goes back to TOS original point in the 1st post and my reaffirming and standing with him on it and at the same time also expressing appreciation to Steve's point which from my POV also reaffirms TOS original point. And even though I don't share Steve's belief in a higher power, his expression still supports the basis of a shared belief between us and therefore out of my own self interest, I want to protect his thought and speech in the ideal he sees me as no physical threat and will reciprocate in kind. From difference we discover a mutual benefit in which we both enjoy our own liberty as we see fit and no one had anybody for lunch.
The founding fathers had their sins and many of them too but as TOS pointed out with he and Moreluck, the real spirit of the 4th, the heart of the Declaration of Independence was that men could be free, enjoying the ultimate of liberty and yet in the interest of voluntary mutual expression to one another, live together where each is the King of his own world and thus conflicts minimized and peace and prosperity maximized.
When men form collective groups, nationstates if you will, the wellbeing of the State becomes the principle purpose and the individual man only propers when his individual will and the will of the state are the same. When the individual's speech eg thought (speech is the public expression of private thought) differs from the collective eg nationstate, then the individual must be suppressed and the most effective means first and foremost is to influence thought. Thought is influenced by what information one is able to obtain and in a transparent world all have the same information and the basic thought will be similar. Same is true in a world were only a certain set of facts are revealed and thus people will tend to reach a conclusion that was intended and not a conclusion based on real facts. Those facts form thoughts which are then expressed publicly as speech. I've just manipulated your speech by the withholding of facts and information and thus I've just committed an act of force against you. That's how I see the last part of my comments you spoke of have to do with free speech. Not sure if that answer is satisfactory to you but it's what I got for now!
