TRAMvay 17
In the social contract people were expected to give some of their rights to get life security and some basic rights. This was commonly agreed by the society but I think freedom of speech is not a vital right that should be provided. Moreover a government would be running faster and far better with the absence of freedom of speech and because of these two matters from my point of view there should be given no freedom of speech at all.
What are the primary rights? Right to get protected right to reach food and water and basically right to have a liveable life. Anything beyond that from my opinion is unneccesary, luxury rights. With the lack of freedom of speech nobody literally dies, with the lack of freedom of speech nobody feels hunger or thirst and it is enough for a government to limit freedom of speech because it’s not their job to provide a sustainable freedom of speech their job is to provide sustainable food and water resources and strong security and a guarantee that nobody will attack one and in exchange one will attack nobody. To have such goals achieved, to have a better government no freedom of speech is compulsory.
This leads in to my second point, how can a government be faster and better without the freedom of speech? To prove my point I have two examples from history. Abdulhamid the 2nd’s Ottoman Empire and Adolf Hitler’s Germany. In these two governments there were no freedom of speech, everything and everybody was limited. Now at those time Ottoman Empire was just about to fail, but Abdulhamid was able to carry on the Ottomans for 33 extra years while they were in such a situation and maybe if he let everybody free and provided freedom of speech both Europe and people themselves could’ve ended the Ottoman Empire but with him limiting the freedom of speech the best possible scenario was drawn in that situation and Ottomans fall has been delayed for 33 years. Hitler example suits the fast part of the government. In those times on the contrary Germany lost lots of power because of the defeat in WW1 and when Hitler came in to power he limited freedom of speech, forcefully united the people and this lead to having faster decisions which is efficient and with this he was able to conquer most of Europe for a short time.(Of course his actions with jewish people cannot be justified and that is out of this example the point that I’m giving is how effective a government can be with limiting the freedom of speech.)
Freedom of speech is nor unnecessary nor effective for a government. If the government completes their primary duties it is ok and freedom of speech is a luxury that shouldn’t be given. Moreover freedom of speech slows things down in a government and a government is more effective when they have control, when they have the complete power.
Related Articles
