A FREE taste of an Insight Politics article by writer Nathan Smith.
If you don’t have a Silver level membership yet you are missing out on our Insight Politics articles.
Why Everyone Is Confused About Free Speech
I talked with a few people after the Free Speech Union debate last week in Auckland and was struck by how poorly everyone understood the point of free speech.
The debate itself was well-structured. Two people on each side – pro-censorship and anti-censorship – with Josie Pagani as moderator. The crowd was energetic and asked good follow-up questions. Mostly, everyone kept civil, and solid points were made by both teams.
Someone asked me after the debate which “side” I fell on. Did I think free speech was an inviolable right or did I agree some subjects only cause harm and shouldn’t be discussed? He didn’t expect me to say that I don’t believe in free speech at all. I am a free-speech minimalist.
I don’t want my political enemies to be able to speak. Speech is persuasion, so there is no excuse to offer any platform to my enemy. In fact, I am constantly baffled that anyone believes in free speech (defined as the right to speak your mind in public on any subject short of inciting violence).
If I had to guess, I’d say most people at that debate who were concerned about the loss of free speech probably identify as Christian of some sort. There are plenty of non-religious people worried about creeping authoritarianism too, but the free speech “debate” seems to draw most of its energy from religious folk of a particular angle.
This is truly schizophrenic. The very people who should be the most anti-free speech are those who have been tricked into believing it is a fundamental right. Historians will have a tough time figuring out how Christians came to be so destroyed by their enemy’s weapons that they actually adopted them as their own position. Astounding.
Have Christians forgotten that they believe in God? Remember the Big Guy? The omnipotent entity who spoke directly to humans and gave them a set of laws to follow? They do believe in this God, right? Most Christians aren’t weaselly “Unitarians”; at least I don’t think so.
Christians can often quote all kinds of sentences, passages and verses from the Bible, sometimes even the laws themselves. They know these rules exist. And yet they will stand there with a straight face and say it is everyone’s right to have free speech. This means that God’s laws – the rules laid down by the creator of the universe – are up for debate. Again, schizophrenic.
Do Christians see just how post-modern and arrogant this position is? By supporting free speech, they are claiming equality with God, and perhaps even superiority to Him. This is garden-variety blasphemy. If a person can “debate” a law set by God, they’d better be sure they know better than God. Do Christians believe they are better than God? If not, why are they defending free speech?
The only consistent position for anyone who believes in a God is to be resolute that some things are permanently out of bounds for debate. If God said something, then the debate is over. When God commands people to do things, the proper action can only be to ensure those commandments are fulfilled.
There is no halfway position. Either God said it, or humans pretended God said it. Only one of those positions is consistent with free speech, and that position, should you adopt it, will collapse a person’s faith in Christianity. The basic arithmetic of the situation predicts that Christians cannot support free speech. I’m not saying this – the Bible is saying it.
Christians aren’t the only ones being schizophrenic here. Anyone who supports free speech fits into one of two camps: either they understand how power works, or they have no idea how power works.
Clever supporters of free speech know that it is a weapon used to undermine a political enemy and to take power for yourself. The very idea that someone is willing to engage in a debate proves that they lack confidence in their position. If your beliefs are true, why argue about them? Debate is like the camel’s nose. Once free speech gets into the tent, regime change is not too far away.
Free speech is a ladder used to reach the top of the pyramid. But once you get to the top, it is unwise to leave that ladder lying around. How quickly the ladder gets pulled up depends on the fragility of the regime change. But a competent regime will always pull the free speech ladder up behind them. Anyone serious about power would never let their enemies have access to a weapon.
After all, the entire point of politics is to defeat your enemies. Politics is not a debate club. There was never an independent agora, not even in Ancient Greece. Any political action that doesn’t weaken an opponent is simply wasted energy. And since energy can never be destroyed, wasted energy only ends up helping your enemies. Politics follows the laws of thermodynamics.
If you want to “discuss” things in a civil manner, it is first necessary to create the appropriate social conditions. And the only way to create an agora is to crush your political enemies absolutely. Speech can only approach being “free” when there is no threat from corruption to the “marketplace of ideas”.
It’s pretty obvious by now that Christianity is perhaps the worst religion for understanding power. So, it makes sense that modern Christians never miss an opportunity to act like they don’t want power. They have no clue how to get it. They make basic, fundamental mistakes all the time, and yet keep complaining that the world is getting more “degenerate” and “evil”. Again, schizophrenic.
I get that it’s a bit rich for an atheist to offer suggestions for how Christians might gain power, but that big book called the Bible clearly isn’t helping. Indeed, since the entire message of Jesus was to reject earthly power, maybe it’s time to read a few other books if you want to live safely on Earth like the rest of us.
I’m not all doom and gloom. My goal every week is to present clear and practical methods for winning in the political realm (the real political realm, not the theatre). So, in that light, here’s some completely unsolicited advice for the Christians who don’t want the world to collapse.
The greatest mistake anyone can make in politics is acting like you have power when you have no power. The free speech question is a great example of this error. There is zero point – absolutely none – in advocating for less censorship (of any kind) if you do not already have access to the levers of power. You are getting everything backwards.
The mathematics of power are simple. Everything is downstream of power. If you want a safe neighbourhood, you need power. If you want healthy children, you need power. If you want a growing GDP or maybe to get to the moon, you need power. Even ideology is downstream of power. Once you gain power, then you can choose your ideology. But not the other way around.
It’s doubtful that any serious Christian still believes New Zealand is a Christian country. What they don’t fully comprehend is just how non-Christian it has become. Imagine for a moment you are walking down the street and see an unchristian act being committed.
If you try to stop that action, can you reasonably expect to be treated fairly by the courts? If the answer is no, then rather than waste your energy complaining about free speech, it is far more strategic to position your fellow Christians in the judiciary instead. That’s what planning looks like.
Diligently, over time, the more Christian friends are placed in positions of influence, the more friendly those institutions will become to Christians. Equally, if you can block non-Christians from those roles, your enemies will also have less power. A strategy of positive attrition (removing your enemies) and negative attrition (adding friends) is straightforward and basic. You can start this project tomorrow.
Furthermore, each time a small victory is achieved, it is important not to spend that power immediately by changing a few laws. These are just temporary fixes since laws can always be altered if your enemies regain power. Instead, think of every tiny piece of power as a dividend that must be reinvested so you can gain even more power. Compound interest applies to power as well.
This is known as a power dividend. In other words, if a proposed political action does not result in gaining more power for your side, then it is wasted energy. You cannot do anything without power. The goal is not to get 20% of the power. Anything short of 100% is a failure. This is the only way the maths works out.
Only once you have the power can you consider hosting a healthy debate. You don’t need to be evil to get this power, but you must do what is necessary. There are no shortcuts. Either you have the power, or you don’t. You can’t make it disappear. Power follows the laws of thermodynamics.
Of course, you don’t have to listen to me. If you are happy to keep losing, that’s fine. But I have told you how to win.
If you enjoyed that FREE taste why not subscribe to a SILVER level membership today?
**If you already have a Basic or Bronze Membership upgrade your subscription here.
You will not only get access to Insight Politics articles like the one above but you will also gain access to all our puzzles, SonovaMin and BoomSlang’s fantastic cartoons, and our private members’ forum MyBFD as well as enjoying ad-free viewing.
$25 a month ($6.25 a week) (89c a day)
$300 a year