The origin of freedom of expression lies in social life itself. For a human being separated from society and social environment, the concept of freedom of expression is meaningless.
Therefore, the very condition for a just, correct, and fair social life is the belief in, respect for, and existence of freedom of expression within a unified social existence.
Although in a society where freedom of expression is respected some people may still come under the authority of others, this does not necessarily mean the absence of freedom of expression. Such authority may exist for various reasons, including the will of the people themselves.
However, if freedom of expression does not exist or is restricted by those in power, it inevitably results in unjust domination of some people by others.
The difference between these two forms of authority — regardless of whether the authority itself is right or wrong — lies in this:
In the first case, people accept that authority legally or even genuinely through their free expression.
In the second, they submit to that authority without the possibility of free expression.
The only way to prove whether people truly accept or reject a governing power is to observe whether their freedom of expression is respected — and crucially, by the judgment of those under authority, not by the ruling power itself.
This remains true even in democratic systems.
Without belief in and respect for freedom of expression — evaluated by the judgment of opponents and minorities — no social life can be considered correct or just, even if the government represents a majority.
Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the legitimacy of any democracy.
If the government does not respect the freedom of expression of opponents and minorities, and if this respect is not confirmed by them, then that democracy lacks both legal and moral legitimacy.
The solution is simple: allow every individual — especially opponents and minorities — to speak and express their views about anything and anyone freely, and ensure that these expressions are accessible to all who wish to hear, read, or see them.
Freedom of expression is also a necessary condition for the legitimacy of any form of consensus, legal or real.
Without it, no consensus can maintain its legitimacy.
Consensus, in this sense, goes beyond democracy — both in scope and scale.
Democracy usually applies to political and governmental matters and typically functions from 50% + 1 up to 100% participation.
Consensus can apply to any human matter and is achieved relatively from around 75% up to full agreement.
The relationship between open and free consensus, democracy, and social life is one of inclusion:
Open and free consensus includes democracy and gives it meaning and value.
Democracy includes social life and gives it meaning and value.
Freedom of expression is therefore the indispensable foundation of legitimacy for any consensus, democracy, or social life — determined only through the judgment of opponents and minorities.
Without freedom of expression, there can be no legitimate social relations, justice, social contracts, or accepted social order — especially not one recognized by opponents and minorities.
This leads to a crucial issue: the guarantee of freedom of expression by those in power, especially if they enjoy democratic majority support.
The oppression of dictatorships is visible and recognizable to all.
But the oppression of democracies — particularly when supported by a large majority — is often hidden and silent.
If unchecked, this hidden oppression tends to either transform into open dictatorship or persist as a systemic dictatorship, both undesirable outcomes.
Ignoring this silent oppression under the cover of majority rule is precisely the justification dictators use to legitimize their power.
But in reality, neither the government nor the majority can serve as the judge of whether freedom of expression exists for opponents and minorities.
To secure this natural right, mechanisms must exist that prevent both democracies and dictatorships from using power to silence expression.
The existence or absence of freedom of expression is not something governments can decide; it is a natural and inalienable right of every human being, and cannot be overridden by majority vote.
This means even a single person in the minority can veto the entire legitimacy of a democracy or consensus by declaring that their freedom of expression has not been respected.
The only way for governments and societies (excluding that one person) to resolve this veto is by guaranteeing at least two basic rights for that person:
Personal security, and
Freedom of expression, as judged by that person themselves.
A powerful guarantee of this social contract is the shared belief in and protection of life security and freedom of expression for all, without interference by any government or majority.
Yes, respecting freedom of expression may bring some costs to society.
But the cost of not respecting it is far greater — and immeasurable.
While the costs of protecting freedom of expression can be identified, discussed, and managed, the costs of suppressing it remain hidden, unpredictable, and destructive.
Freedom of Thought and Expression: The Fundamental Criterion of Legitimacy, Truth, and Human Coexistence
Introduction
In a world filled with religious, national, philosophical, civilizational, and political claims, a fundamental question arises:
👉 What is the primary criterion of legitimacy, truth, and humanity?
The answer is clear: freedom of thought and expression for every individual, without exception.
No religion, nation, ideology, or majority — not even a unanimous one — holds legitimacy without respecting this freedom.
Principle One: Freedom of Expression — A Prerequisite for Legal Legitimacy
The legal legitimacy of any government, institution, or claim is valid only if it is formed in an environment of complete freedom of thought and expression.
If even a single individual cannot freely oppose a government, state institution, or any political, legal, security, cultural, or economic claim, the legal legitimacy of that power is nullified. What remains is mere power, not legitimate right.
Majority rule is meaningful and valid only when it emerges within a space of full freedom for minorities and dissenters.
Principle Two: Freedom of Expression — A Condition for Genuine Truth
No claim — religious, philosophical, scientific, or political — can be part of the realm of truth without freedom of expression.
Genuine truth requires free investigation, reasoning, and personal choice.
A consensus among experts and specialists on any subject can be followed by the general public only as long as that consensus remains valid in an open and free society.
At the same time, everyone must retain the right to question, investigate, or reject that consensus through free inquiry.
Principle Three: The Criterion of Human Brotherhood
Every human being — regardless of identity, religion, ideology, nationality, ethnicity, race, or belief — who respects the freedom of thought and expression of others, has the legal legitimacy to participate in the human community.
In such a society, two levels of brotherhood can emerge:
Legal brotherhood: enabling peaceful coexistence among all individuals despite intellectual, religious, or cultural differences.
True brotherhood: among people who share beliefs, within free communities, with full respect for privacy and cultural, religious, philosophical, and political activity.
Principle Four: Ethical Loyalty to Freedom
The loyalty of a free human being is not to names, labels, or groups, but to freedom itself.
Wherever freedom of thought and expression is respected, dialogue, coexistence, and transformation become possible.
Wherever this freedom is denied — even to a small minority — both legal and genuine brotherhood lose their legitimacy, no matter what name it is given: justice, faith, or homeland.
Conclusion
Freedom of thought and expression is not a privilege. It is the essential condition for legal legitimacy and the possibility of genuine truth.
This principle is the primary and fundamental criterion by which the validity of every ruler, government, claimant, religion, ideology, identity, and culture must be measured.
Respecting and upholding this principle is the beginning of human coexistence and the end of dictatorship.
Freedom of thought and expression for every person, evaluated especially by opponents and minorities, even if only by a single individual, is a necessary condition for the following:
A just and fair social life.
Democracy.
Open and free consensus.
The legal and moral legitimacy of any claim or authority.
The collapse of hierarchical power structures in favor of a flat, just, and participatory society.
The realization of a unified humanity under open and free consensus and democracy.
The possibility of genuine truth and validity for any claim.
The legal legitimacy of any claimant or claim.
Open-mindedness and the growth and dynamism of human knowledge and capabilities.
The emergence of a Wise World.
The artificial-supernatural evolution of a purposeful universe.
No human being may ever be killed, for any reason, by anyone, to protect or preserve freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression takes precedence over every other human matter.
Therefore, no person or entity — for any reason, motive, justification, or pretext — may place anything above freedom of expression as evaluated by opponents and minorities.
Even political parties should prioritize democracy in their naming. For example, “Democratic Socialist Party” should be preferred over “Socialist Democratic Party,” and “Democratic National Party” over “National Democratic Party.”
Freedom of expression is a human right that does not depend on majority rule.
In fact, freedom of expression — evaluated by opponents and minorities — must be accepted through absolute consensus. Anyone who rejects this principle is, in essence, a potential dictator who may become an actual one.
Rulers, majorities, and power holders have no legitimate right to define or judge the legal status of freedom of expression while in power.
They are inherently subject to suspicion of violating it. Freedom of expression is not their problem — it is the problem of the majority facing a dictatorial minority and the minority facing a ruling majority.
Dictators and their supporters, whether in the majority or minority, speak freely without accountability. Their critiques usually serve to strengthen their power. This is not the real issue of freedom of expression.
The real problem arises when a majority opposes a ruling minority or when a minority opposes a ruling majority — and the latter case is often the most difficult to resolve.
Freedom of expression can cover and address virtually all human problems.
Without it, there is no meaningful concept of right or wrong, truth or falsehood — only the dominance of falsehood.
Freedom of expression is essential for security, justice, and well-being for all humanity and beyond.
It does not guarantee truth — but it guarantees the possibility of discovering it. Even in free societies, people can make mistakes, but at least the path to correction exists. Without freedom of expression for dissenters, everything inevitably rests on falsehood.
Freedom of expression is required for democracy and open consensus, but it alone cannot ensure the correctness or health of democracy.
Only through the collapse of power hierarchies and the equal growth of awareness, knowledge, and capability among all people can a wise, just, and healthy democratic order emerge.
Anyone who respects the freedom of expression of others — even opponents — but supports or aligns with those who do not, loses their own legal legitimacy, unless their relationship is aimed at reforming and improving them.
Likewise, those who align with violators of free expression lose their claim to genuine truth as long as they continue such support.
I know well that governments, political parties, and societies of the world will not simply sit and act upon my words. Without power and widespread support, these words may not be heard — let alone implemented.
Yet they serve to clarify my stance — and the stance of others like me — on the legitimacy and truth of such actors.
For example, if respecting my freedom of expression (evaluated by me as a dissenting voice) is a necessary condition for the legal legitimacy of any government or authority, then any government failing to do so loses its legitimacy and becomes, in my eyes, a dictatorship.
Likewise, if respecting freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the possibility of genuine truth of any claim, then any claimant who does not respect it has, by definition, no genuine truth in their claim as long as they maintain that position.
This same criterion applies to those who claim to respect free expression but support or strengthen those who do not.
Those who deny others their freedom of expression typically believe that all legitimacy, truth, and justice reside exclusively with them. Consequently, they cannot tolerate opposition.
In a Wise World, the brain-like human and semi-human societal system actively seeks out opponents and minorities, giving them space, support, and voice. It uses their criticism to improve itself and — when their contributions help make humanity and the world better — rewards and encourages them.
What matters is not the preservation of my views or those of people like me, but the growth, preservation, and flourishing of humanity and the world itself — achieved through open and free consensus, not through coercion, manipulation, emotional pressure, political deals, or force.
Imagine billions upon billions of human and semi-human element-cells forming a brain-like global system, interacting through open and specialized collective intelligence.
Each element-cell would have its own view on both specialized and shared issues, contributing to a vast diversity of thought.
Through this diversity, open and free consensus on every matter could emerge and guide wise action.
Such pluralism would be the greatest blessing of the universe — enabling intelligent decision-making for the betterment of existence. It could even transform the inevitable end of a neutral universe into an eternal evolutionary process.
Diversity of thought among human and semi-human element-cells is the greatest blessing of the Wise World.
In such an environment, the return to dictatorship becomes increasingly improbable.
The Wise World, once it reaches sufficient scale and maturity, could become irreversible toward dictatorship and destruction — provided humanity does not first cross the opposite threshold into irreversible authoritarianism.
Humanity now stands at a critical crossroads:
Either sliding into an irreversible dictatorship, as signs increasingly suggest,
Or — through awareness, knowledge, and capability — transcending historical tyranny to build a Wise World where freedom of thought and expression for all becomes unbreakable.
Rather than focusing primarily on the direct removal of dictators—which typically carries high human and financial costs—it is preferable to concentrate on promoting freedom of thought and expression in countries under authoritarian rule. The main vulnerability of dictatorships is their suppression of freedom of thought and expression. Their greatest and most fundamental error is the repression and denial of this freedom, often accompanied by conceptual and practical distortions of what freedom of expression actually means. Dictators—especially those who enjoy some degree of charismatic leadership—often justify repression under the official pretexts of protecting national interests or security.
Decisions made in authoritarian governments may also be made in democracies. Therefore, opposing the policies or actions of dictators is not by itself the proper strategy for reforming dictatorships or for establishing and expanding freedom of expression. The single, essential defect of existing dictatorships is the repression of dissent—especially the suppression of opponents and minorities.
Freedom of thought and expression is intrinsically difficult to control. What dictators and authoritarian regimes do is raise the cost of free expression for dissenters; sometimes that cost is paid with the speaker’s life.
The following measures are proposed to address this:
Create an international central organization—formed by democratic states—to lead, coordinate, research, advise, and manage comprehensive efforts against dictatorships and the censorship and repression they impose, both nationally and globally. Something analogous to the European Union’s mechanisms in this area would serve as a model. The United Nations is not suitable as the primary leader for this task because authoritarian governments are active participants there; in my view parts of the UN system—from the Secretary-General to the General Assembly and many agencies—have become tools that can strengthen dictatorships. The UN and its agencies should nevertheless be used in anti-repression efforts, but not as the principal coordinating body.
This proposed organization should consist of representatives from democratic governments. The qualification of representatives should be based on each government’s ranking in measures of freedom of expression, human rights, and democracy—for example, countries scoring above a threshold such as 75. In practice, this would also encourage those states themselves to improve and deepen their commitment to freedom of expression and human rights. Democracies with higher rankings would carry greater weight in leading and managing efforts to promote freedom of expression, human rights, and democracy globally.
Existing governmental and non-governmental organizations active in these fields should be able to participate effectively in this body. Such coordination would create an integrated and powerful force to confront dictatorships worldwide, increasing effectiveness and efficiency. Within such an organization, all relevant concerns, constraints, and considerations could be taken into account.
Concentrate directly on the primary global problem—dictatorship—and on its essential weakness: the suppression of freedom of thought and expression.
Today, opponents of dictatorships typically mobilize around economic grievances, administrative corruption, or political, social, cultural, security, and legal issues. External support for these movements—often framed as human-rights assistance—can unintentionally obscure the fundamental issue and even provide dictators with justification for harsher crackdowns. We must recognize two points: first, promoting freedom of expression, human rights, and democracy will not solve every problem; and second, many problems found in authoritarian countries can also occur in democracies that respect those freedoms. Some human-rights advocates and democracy supporters argue tactically that emphasizing such practical grievances helps mobilize people against dictators. But behind that tactic lies the risk that one form of dictatorship will simply be replaced by another—even if the new ruler behaves differently or claims to serve national or international interests.
Advocacy for freedom of expression, human rights, and democracy should not be presented as a cure-all for every social problem. Rather, it should aim to democratize decision-making and allow collective judgment and dissent to function as the corrective mechanism. The goal is broad, inclusive participation in public affairs, so that if a problem remains unsolved, people collectively reflect and improve rather than scapegoat others or blame external enemies. Therefore, when confronting dictatorships, emphasis must remain on securing freedom of thought and expression—not primarily on other social issues. At the same time, education, civic work, and persuasive public campaigns about freedom of expression, rights, democracy, and ultimately open global consensus must proceed alongside these efforts.
Recognize that, by nature, dictatorship is primarily a domestic, national phenomenon with global and regional effects. Conversely, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, democracy, and especially open and free consensus are essentially global phenomena with national and local impacts. Thus, dictatorship should be fought vigorously and not treated merely as an internal matter of individual states.
Focus efforts on confronting major, influential dictatorships that enable and reinforce other authoritarian regimes around the world.
Unfortunately, the approach of some democratic governments to powerful authoritarian states is not always transparent. Is their stance aimed at weakening a rival for power, or at genuinely addressing the problem of domestic dictatorships that oppress their peoples and attempt to export authoritarian influence? The core problem with these regimes is their repression, not other policy matters. If freedom of expression, human rights, and democracy were respected in those countries, competition among political forces could take place peacefully within a democratic framework.
This repression is one of the major obstacles to forming an open global consensus. If humanity lived under a globally open and democratic consensus, it would matter far less which country, party, or group held leadership: disputes would be resolved peacefully by democratic means, and the mere fact of power would not legitimize domination. Fighting numerous small, dependent dictatorships individually is inefficient; by addressing principal, influential authoritarian regimes, many subsidiary dictatorships are effectively weakened.
Note: the aim is not to remove or weaken countries’ states per se, but to eliminate dictatorship. There is nothing wrong with a state that used to be authoritarian becoming a leading country—so long as it respects freedom of expression, human rights, and democracy. Under a global environment of open consensus, any country, government, nation, or party could, through peaceful democratic effort, rise to and remain in a leading position.
Undertake fundamental theoretical, philosophical, research, and advisory work on freedom of thought and expression, human rights, democracy, open consensus, dictatorship, and authoritarian regimes within universities, think tanks, and research institutions. Such intellectual work will produce paradigms, doctrines, beliefs, and value systems that can then be taught and disseminated through logical, scientific, cultural, and educational channels.
Educate and promote definitions, concepts, metrics, and evaluation indices regarding freedom of thought and expression, human rights, democracy, and open consensus among people worldwide—both in democratic and non-democratic countries. This will help embed the necessary paradigms, doctrines, values, and cultures in people’s minds and behaviors, so they may make informed, timely, and appropriate decisions. It will generate a practical public opinion that can influence politicians and power holders—whether those holders are in democracies or authoritarian states.
Conduct diverse political, legal, security, economic, cultural, and social lobbying—domestic and international—to persuade power holders on multiple fronts to oppose dictatorships and their repression.
Implement comprehensive pressure: legal, political, economic, cultural, social, and security-related sanctions and isolation, and remove dictators from international forums and influence. Such pressures can be applied officially by democratic governments and also unofficially by global civil society—especially by citizens of democratic countries.
Encourage civic, peaceful actions to oppose dictatorships and defend free expression, human rights, democracy, and open consensus—such as peaceful demonstrations, strikes, slowdowns, and other lawful expressions of dissatisfaction.
Understand the power-cone model of dictatorships: dictatorships persist because their power base forms a cone whose broad base supports the apex. If the base of this cone (ordinary people and middle strata) is persuaded, educated, and empowered, the cone can be peacefully hollowed out and a dictatorship can fall without violence.
This requires educating and empowering people at the base and in the middle strata so they gain the necessary awareness and practical capacities to realize their strength. When the beliefs and values that dictators exploit are replaced by informed public values, dictators—no matter how charismatic—lose their foundations.
The most difficult dictators to remove peacefully are those built on charismatic ideological, religious, national, ethnic, or racial leadership. Yet with the enlightenment and education of the populace, the conditions that produce such charismatic dictatorships disappear; if such regimes have already emerged, they can be toppled by these nonviolent means.
Freedom of expression is of such a nature that if all people on Earth declare that it exists and is fully observed, yet a single person denies it, the word of that one individual vetoes the opinion of all others and nullifies their claim.
Conversely, if all people say that freedom of expression does not exist and is not respected, but one person affirms that it does, the affirmation of that one person does not veto the rest.
In other words, freedom of expression—and its scope—is an affirmative and existential matter that requires absolute consensus to be verified.
Every individual, without exception, holds the right of veto within this universal consensus.
What, then, must be done so that the absence or neglect of freedom of expression is not exploited by opportunists in practice?
The simplest way out of this seemingly dead-end situation is that all people, especially rulers, engage peacefully, rationally, and kindly in dialogue with that single dissenter, providing the conditions he or she deems necessary for freedom of expression, until that person is convinced and joins the universal consensus.
If necessary, mediators—respected figures or ordinary citizens—should appeal to that person not to be overly rigid, nor to misuse freedom of expression for personal or destructive ends, nor to burden it with unintended harms and consequences.
Freedom of expression requires no definition.
It is a primordial human concept that manifests naturally within human society.
Without the presence of another person, freedom of expression has no subject and no meaning.
Yet, when we attempt to define it—and to define its limits so that it is neither abused nor harmful—it must be said: every definition, every limitation, every precondition or clause concerning freedom of expression requires the absolute free and open consensus of humanity.
In the existence and observance of freedom of expression, and in defining its boundaries, conditions, or qualifications, no individual or collective consensus—absolute or relative—is needed to deny it.
In other words, the issue at stake is not the existence of freedom of expression, but its nonexistence; not its observance, but its violation.
The problem of freedom of expression arises only when someone claims that freedom of expression—for themselves or for others—does not exist or is not respected.
At that point, it becomes the moral and civic duty of every human being—ruler or subject, majority or minority—to examine that claim freely and honestly.
Either they must persuade the claimant that freedom of expression truly exists, or they must reform themselves, their institutions, and their societies to acknowledge and realize that claim in practice.
There must therefore exist a mechanism—beyond the reach of rulers, even those supported by an overwhelming majority—that guarantees no one can place that mechanism under their control or influence, and that no one else can do so either.
Something akin to the establishment of protected spaces—both real and virtual—where anyone may enter freely, express themselves openly, and complain of the absence or violation of freedom of expression without fear.
We must be aware that such a safeguard must be built within the natural order—the “law of the jungle”—that in truth still governs both nature and human society.
Therefore, this guarantee is fragile and precarious, and its only true protection lies in the serious commitment of all humankind to uphold and defend it.
Without the theoretical belief, inner valuation, and practical observance of the freedom of thought and expression—especially regarding every personal and intellectual opponent of mine, and under the judgment of every personal and intellectual opponent of mine—I inevitably stand upon wrongness and ill conduct.
Everything I believe, think, and express would then be, wholly and absolutely, false, deceptive, mistaken, and untrue.
The first step, and the first index, in transcending self-centeredness, self-importance, self-aim, and self-value, is to mentally acknowledge and practically uphold this truth.
This wrongness and ill conduct are natural forms of human imperfection that have arisen naturally throughout the course of personal and social evolution. Yet now, as conscious beings, we have the capacity to recognize and correct them within ourselves.
Such behavior is, in essence, a reflection of an inner tendency toward self-centeredness, self-aim, and self-valuation—a projection of the ego that manifests outwardly in this way.
Anyone who experiences such a feeling within their own mind and conscience can, through that very awareness, recognize their natural state of moral deficiency.
But if someone is not like this—if they do believe in and value and practice freedom of thought and expression toward every other person—then it becomes possible, and even probable, that such a person, both personally and intellectually, stands upon truth, rightness, justice, and sincerity. Yet even then, one must investigate and examine this possibility.
Here, the term opinion encompasses all forms of belief, value, conviction, faith, religion, philosophy, and doctrine—concerning any matter, any person, and anything whatsoever.
This rule thus becomes a measure for testing the possibility and probability of truthfulness, correctness, and sincerity in every person, every idea, and every claim.
Through this principle and index, we can understand a fundamental point:
Whoever, in any opinion or belief, does not embody this openness toward the freedom of thought and expression of others, certainly walks the path of self-centeredness, self-aim, and self-valuation—and uses their opinions merely as instruments for that purpose.
But if one does uphold this openness and humility, it becomes possible and probable that they stand upon honesty and truth—and that they may be free and distant from egoism, self-centeredness, and self-idolatry.
Such a possibility deserves careful inquiry and reflection.
Methods for Implementing the Right of Veto over the Legal and Moral Legitimacy of Any Claim — by Any Opponent or Minority, Even a Single Individual
Freedom of expression is of such a nature that if all people on Earth affirm that it exists and is respected by all, yet a single person denies it, the word of that one individual vetoes the opinion of all others and renders it null and void.
Conversely, if all people declare that freedom of expression does not exist and is not observed, but one person affirms that it does, the affirmation of that one person does not veto the rest.
In other words, freedom of expression is an affirmative reality that requires absolute consensus for its existence and observance to be verified.
Within that absolute consensus, every individual possesses an equal right of veto.
What, then, should be done so that the absence or neglect of freedom of expression is not exploited by those who might use it as a pretext for falsehood or manipulation?
The simplest escape from this seemingly dead-end situation is for all people—especially rulers and those in positions of authority—to engage peacefully, logically, and compassionately with the lone dissenter. They should reason with that individual and provide the conditions he or she deems necessary for true freedom of expression, until that person is persuaded and joins the universal consensus.
But to implement the veto right of opponents and minorities—even of a single individual against the rest of humanity, against the majority, and against the ruling power—the following methods and instruments may be employed.
This veto right extends even to a single individual standing against the entire human community minus themselves.
In other words, the right to veto legitimacy and truth—both legal and existential— may be exercised by any opponent or minority against any claimant with any claim.
This is not because of opposition to that claimant or to their claim, but solely because that claimant has failed to respect the freedom of thought, speech, hearing, and reading of that opponent or minority—as judged by the conscience and reason of that opponent or minority.
The following are possible methods and instruments for realizing this right:
Submission to the judgment of an impartial arbiter mutually accepted by both the minority and the majority—or by the opponents and the proponents—even if that majority comprises the entire human race minus a single dissenter.
If no such arbiter can be found, the final and natural outcome is that the minority or dissenter retains their own right to judgment in this matter.
Persuasion and reconciliation of the dissenter or minority by the majority, by governments, or by the wise and respected figures of the world—through counsel, reason, and moral appeal.
Allowing the dissenter or minority to speak freely in a public or governmental medium, or through an accessible public forum—even if no one chooses to listen or pay attention.
The essential matter is that their voice can be heard, and their words can reach the public space.
A written, moral, and value-based commitment by all people of the world to respect, heed, and defend the veto right of any opponent or minority—even if that minority consists of only one person.
Global education, cultivation, and cultural development devoted to respecting this veto right and to learning how to address it constructively and peacefully.
Dismantling the hierarchical structures of power throughout human society—in politics, government, economics, culture, law, defense, and beyond, both official and unofficial.
The goal is to create a flat society guided by open and free global consensus—where the veto right to deny legitimacy, acceptability, or truth can be exercised by any single minority or dissenter against any majority, government, or even the entirety of humankind, if that one person so judges.
Recognition of the moral duty of solidarity:
When even one dissenter claims suppression of freedom of expression, and another individual anywhere in the world hears that claim, it becomes a moral obligation for the listener to support that dissenter in their veto.
The communication of this claim must spread rapidly enough that the ruling majority cannot silence it at its root.
Understanding the comparative cost:
The harm caused by restricting freedom of expression is far greater than the harm caused by allowing absolute freedom of expression.
Therefore, when a choice must be made, the side of greater moral and human loss must be avoided—even if that means accepting lesser risks that accompany unrestricted expression.
Affirming that freedom of expression is an affirmative principle:
It must be assumed that freedom of expression does not exist unless proven otherwise—and such proof can be established only through the veto right of opponents and minorities, not by any other means.
If no voice is heard proclaiming that freedom of expression is absent, then it may be presumed to exist.
Yet the guarantee of this presumption depends upon the collective moral, legal, and practical commitment of all people—including the ruling majority—to uphold the veto right of dissenters and minorities.
If they fail to do so, the legitimacy and authenticity—both legal and moral—of everyone, including the people themselves, is nullified; all stand upon falsehood and invalidity.
In such a case, the single dissenter is the one who holds legal truth—and may possibly hold moral truth as well.
The situation is analogous to the concept of security:
When no one complains of insecurity, security can be presumed to exist.
The existence of security cannot be proven by government statistics or official claims; it is proven only by the absence of fear and complaint.
Likewise, when no one complains of repression, it implies that freedom of expression prevails.
Yet even the complaint of one single dissenter proves that repression exists—unless and until the majority and the rulers satisfy that person’s freedom of thought and expression.
The Individual as a Universal Veto
I may rightfully claim that when my freedom of thought and expression is violated—whether in a dictatorship or even in a democracy—all governments, societies, institutions, and people of the human world stand upon falsehood, invalidity, and untruth.
This claim remains in force unless there exist those—whether rulers or citizens—who, in my own judgment and by my own evaluation, are genuinely defending my freedom of thought and expression.
At this moment, I see no such defenders of my freedom of expression in the world.
Therefore, from my perspective, all people on Earth stand in falsity and moral nullity, unless and until I can verify that they are actively and sincerely defending my right to express my thoughts.
This is not an act of arrogance or excessive self-importance.
I do not proclaim this only for myself; I proclaim it for every individual who exercises the right of veto anywhere in the world.
Each such individual possesses the right to nullify the legitimacy and truth—both legal and existential—of all humanity, if their freedom of thought and expression is not respected in their own judgment and by their own conscience.
Most, if not all, of those who publicly claim to support freedom of expression—whether states, parties, or peoples—do not treat dictators and dictatorships in accordance with this principle.
Their relationships with authoritarian regimes are typically based on national, governmental, partisan, religious, or ideological interests rather than on the genuine defense of freedom of expression.
This reveals the true root of power-seeking and exposes their neglect in defending my right to free expression.
Such interactions with dictatorships—under whatever name—have little or nothing to do with defending freedom of thought and expression, either in the general sense or in the personal and particular sense that includes myself and those like me.
Therefore, from my judgment, all those actors lose their legal and moral legitimacy, unless, by their conduct and judgment, they prove that they do, in fact, defend the freedom of expression of myself and others like me.
Perhaps there are some who ultimately strive only for their own freedom of expression, not for that of others.
Yet such selective striving does not restore their legitimacy from my perspective.
The Limits of Technological and Structural Solutions
Digital and decentralized technologies—such as blockchain systems, distributed ledgers, or open archives—cannot by themselves solve this problem.
For even if such systems prevent the deletion of my words, they do not prevent the elimination of myself.
If anyone can identify me, silence me, or erase my presence, then the condition of repression remains fundamentally intact, regardless of technological decentralization.
The Boundaries of Hearing and Expression
Indeed, the entire human community—minus the one dissenter—possesses the right not to listen to that person’s voice or to read their words.
Yet they do not possess the right to silence that voice, to take away that person’s tongue or pen, or to prevent others from hearing or reading what that person has expressed.
What truly matters is that the single opponent or minority has the ability to publish their thoughts and words in a public space accessible to anyone who wishes to hear or read them.
And it is equally essential that any listener or reader who wishes to access those words must be able to do so freely, without obstruction or censorship.
Freedom of Expression as a Global Human Atmosphere
Freedom of expression is a universal and planetary condition—like the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the lithosphere, or the sunlight that envelops the Earth.
It is not a national, territorial, party-based, or sectarian matter; it is a human and planetary phenomenon.
Thus, if the veto right of even a single dissenter or minority is exercised anywhere on Earth, the legal and moral legitimacy of all humanity is nullified—except for those who, in the judgment of that individual, are actively engaged in opposing repression and defending freedom of thought and expression.
Freedom of expression, therefore, does not belong to a people or a state; it belongs to humankind as a whole. Its denial anywhere weakens its existence everywhere.
Freedom of Expression Is Not the Concern of the Majority or the State
Freedom of expression is not fundamentally the issue or prerogative of the majority or of governments—so that they may decide whether it exists or not.
Its existence is not subject to their confirmation, for it stands above and beyond power, as a natural and moral right of every conscious being.
The Universal Test Case
If we can resolve the question of freedom of thought and expression in the most extreme and idealized case—
that is, when the entire human community claims that freedom of expression exists, and one single person denies it and claims oppression—
then we have, by that solution, resolved every other case beneath it.
For every other scenario—whether that of an authoritarian minority oppressing a democratic majority, or a democratic majority silencing a dissenting minority—is merely a subset of this universal example.
Therefore, if the problem can be solved at the highest and most difficult level, it is automatically solved at all lower levels of human society.
The Right to Speak and the Right to Be Heard
For me, it is not important whether anyone listens to what I say.
It is the right of others to choose whether or not to listen.
But what is important is that, first, I am able to speak; and second, that whoever wishes to listen or read what I say can freely access it.
Even if no one listens to or reads my words, the right to speak must coexist with the right to listen and to read.
Both rights are equally sacred and must be respected by all.
Two Fundamental Conditions of Human Society
Freedom of thought and expression, together with freedom to listen and to read, are two essential and inseparable preconditions for all other desired aspects of social life.
No one has the right or the authority to restrict these freedoms for others.
A person may, of course, restrict them for themselves—choosing silence, or choosing not to read or hear—but such self-limitation cannot be imposed upon others.
Hence, in matters of limiting speech or the hearing of speech, the only ethical approach is advice, persuasion, and appeal—never coercion.
The majority may counsel dissenters and minorities to observe certain limits, but they may not compel them.
The Collapse of Universal Legitimacy under Oppression
If, anywhere in human society, for any reason or by any person or group, freedom of thought and expression—or the freedom to hear and to read—is restricted or denied, then the entire human community loses its legitimacy and truth, both legally and morally.
This loss remains until the freedom of that person is restored—in the judgment of that person—and the right to speak, to be heard, and to be read is guaranteed by all.
Only those who are actively striving to restore that freedom, even if not yet successful, may still retain legitimacy.
Therefore, in today’s world, where various dictatorships impose many forms of repression, not only are those dictatorships themselves devoid of legitimacy, but all other governments, peoples, and institutions that do nothing to oppose them also lose their moral and legal legitimacy—even if they enjoy democracy and human rights within their own borders.
Perhaps a few democratic states, a few human-rights organizations, and a small number of individuals across the Earth are genuinely and peacefully working to promote freedom of thought, expression, and listening.
Yet, apart from these few, most of the world’s people, nations, institutions, and organizations lack true legitimacy.
At least from my standpoint, I neither see, hear, nor perceive substantial evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps I am unaware of certain efforts due to my circumstances—but as things stand, I receive no practical support for my own freedom of expression.
Those who genuinely seek to establish and expand freedom of thought and expression in the human world should be able to find, recognize, and support individuals like myself—by every peaceful and possible means.
Thus, I—and others like me—who live, formally or informally, under repression in any country, and who are deprived of freedom of thought and expression, possess the moral and legal right to veto the legitimacy of all existing claims and claimants in human society—not because of their ideas or actions, but simply because of the existence of our oppression.
Freedom of Expression as the Path to Reforming the Law of the Jungle
All that I have said about freedom of thought and expression—and about the freedom to listen, to read, and to see—aims at this:
that within a neutral world, where the law of the jungle still reigns both in nature and in human societies, humankind may learn to consciously reform that law by its own will and awareness.
We must create, by our own collective effort, an open and free space for speaking and listening, for writing and reading, for every human being—judged and preserved by the conscience of all.
This cannot be achieved through local, territorial, national, or ethnic approaches.
No matter how much a people strive to keep the air, water, soil, or sunlight of their own land clean and pure, they inevitably leave room for others who do not—thus giving them the opportunity to destroy what belongs to all.
Dictatorship and repression—like polluted air and poisoned water—are global phenomena.
They are not confined to nations or ideologies; they pervade the collective atmosphere of humankind.
And inevitably, by various direct and indirect means, they reach and affect everyone.
We can already see this happening: the increasing polarization of democratic societies and the rise of extremism on both the right and the left are creating the very conditions for new charismatic leaders to emerge—leaders who will soon transform those same democracies into new forms of dictatorship under different pretexts.
These developments are the visible and invisible consequences—intentional and unintentional—of the influence that existing dictatorships exert upon democratic nations.
They occur continuously and silently, but their outcome is certain: the world will be drawn toward devastating wars, born of the mutual intolerance of dictatorships toward one another.
Each day we witness new alliances and enmities, new treaties and betrayals—governments entering friendships of necessity or deceit, while innocent nations bleed and human dignity is plundered.
Therefore, while there is still time, let humanity act.
Let us give true importance to freedom of thought and expression—the very foundation upon which collective human wisdom and peace can arise.
Let us establish and expand it globally, by every peaceful means available to us.
If this is neglected—as indeed I believe it is—dictatorships and dictators, empowered by the growing force of modern technology, will soon dominate the Earth and humankind.
And after their struggle among themselves, one of them will likely prevail and establish a single, total, planetary dictatorship—extending its control over humanity, the Earth, and even beyond.
This possibility is not remote; it is near and probable.
Unless humanity acts swiftly, those who already exist—the architects of such domination—may, at an unimaginable speed, bring it into being.
And once such a universal dictatorship is established, it will not be reversible.
It will no longer be correctable by reason, nor redeemable by revolution.
The Evolutionary Origin of Power and the Need for Conscious Redirection
The root of the law of the jungle—and of the acquisition and use of power—lies originally in the struggle for survival, both in the natural world and in early human societies.
Yet over the course of human social evolution, this natural instinct of survival gradually expanded beyond its original purpose, transforming into a drive for growth, domination, and control over others and over the world itself.
From this transformation, dictatorships emerged—both naturally and artificially—born of human egoism and sustained by collective ignorance.
Dictatorships, as natural outgrowths of social evolution, inherently seek to dominate all rivals, all adversaries, and ultimately all of humankind.
Their first and greatest enemy, both within their own societies and beyond, is freedom of thought and expression.
As long as freedom of expression exists anywhere on Earth, dictatorships everywhere will seek to extinguish it.
And ironically, in this shared hostility toward freedom, dictatorships easily unite.
They join forces—formally or informally, overtly or covertly—to wage a comprehensive and relentless war against free expression and the democracies that arise from it.
Once they succeed in suppressing freedom, however, they inevitably turn upon one another—each seeking to become the sole dominator of humanity and the world.
This is the great danger I most urgently warn of.
I believe this process is already underway.
It is unfolding in real time before our eyes.
Therefore, something must be done.
Dictatorships must be reformed—not by violence, but through peaceful and evolutionary transformation—guided by a world-centered and purpose-oriented evolution of consciousness.
In this process, all humankind must participate freely and openly, in a global consensus of awareness and action, to elevate our collective condition toward the optimal state of existence and performance.
And if necessary, we must defend freedom of thought and expression—not for the sake of any ideology or nation, but solely for the sake of freedom itself—and for its establishment throughout the whole of humankind and across the Earth.
.
Within human society, two distinct forms of legitimacy can be meaningfully conceived: Legal (or Conventional) Legitimacy and True (or Intrinsic) Legitimacy.
The relationship between their instances is one of partial overlap — some matters may belong to both realms, while others exist in only one.
The scope of legitimacy and authenticity may apply to:
an individual human being, a collective group, an organization or system, an object, a factual statement, a normative proposition, a method or means, a religion or ideology, a belief or value, a government or governing power, the powerful and the powerless, majorities and minorities, opinions and votes, ethics and behavior, relationships and interactions, and beyond.
Legal and conventional legitimacy exists among humans — within societies, nations, and the broader human civilization.
True and intrinsic legitimacy, however, exists independently of humanity; it is an ontological quality of being, not a social construction.
The necessary condition for genuine legal legitimacy is the occurrence of free and open consensus, untainted by coercion, pressure, or violence.
The sufficient condition is the integrity and soundness of that free and open consensus.
Judgment about the presence of these conditions can only be made by absolute consensus — meaning the unanimous agreement of all humankind, whether globally or locally within the relevant domain.
Even a single dissenting individual possesses the power to veto the entire collective judgment concerning the validity of such consensus.
The closer consensus approaches absoluteness, the higher the degree of legitimacy it attains.
For dictators and systems of dictatorship, legitimacy — whether legal or true — holds no meaning.
In other words, for those who neither believe in nor uphold the freedom of thought and expression of others — especially as judged by their opponents and minorities — legitimacy simply does not exist.
Such individuals remain bound to the natural and social evolutionary stage of the human-animal: intelligent, but not yet truly wise.
Their behavior, though intelligent, remains governed by the primitive law of self-preservation and self-expansion.
They recognize no inherent right of existence for others, only for themselves.
Their alliances and collaborations are merely instruments for their own survival and dominance.
In evolutionary terms, they have not yet ascended to the higher stages of human moral and cognitive development.
The Natural and Early Social Human:
Those whose behavior arises directly from the natural and social evolution of the human species —
beings who, by nature, do not recognize or willingly respect the existential rights of others.
Consequently, they have no true comprehension of freedom of thought and expression as the symbol of recognizing such rights.
Through intelligence, such humans have indeed advanced technological and social evolution — what may be called artificial evolution of the selfish, self-centered, and self-serving human — and this process continues today.
The Humanistic and Secular Human:
Those who have come to recognize and respect the existential rights of other humans, and consequently acknowledge their freedom of expression and thought, even when judged by their opponents or minorities.
Yet, their recognition remains anthropocentric — they grant no existential rights beyond humanity itself.
These are the humanists who have built modern human civilization since the European Renaissance — a culture founded on human-centered values.
Through collective intelligence and the mechanisms of democracy within secular frameworks, they have fostered the artificial evolution of the human-centered world.
However, their environmental and ethical awareness still revolves around the survival of humanity, not the survival of the universe or the totality of existence.
The World-Centered and Wisdom-Oriented Human:
Those who acknowledge the right of existence for all of being itself — guided by collective intelligence within the open and free consensus of all natural and artificial intelligences of the universe.
These are the pioneers and architects of what we call the World of Wisdom.
Their presence is not yet widespread or institutionally realized, but signs of their emergence appear wherever such ideas are voiced and shared.
Since they have not yet achieved full realization, they have not produced a mature culture or civilization — but they represent the seed of a new paradigm:
a civilization grounded in the Purpose of Existence itself.
The essential condition for the emergence, survival, and growth of the World of Wisdom Civilization is the formation of a unified human society governed by open and free consensus — a condition that has conceptually emerged but not yet materially manifested.
In dictatorships, legitimacy — whether legal or true — is entirely absent by definition.
Among humanists and secular societies, legitimacy can exist to a certain extent, but it remains conditional.
For world-centered humans, legitimacy — both legal and true — becomes an active and practical reality, grounded in open and free consensus validated by the judgment of dissenters and minorities.
Therefore, if a humanist or secularist collaborates or interacts with dictators or dictatorial systems in ways that sustain or strengthen them —
or even opposes them merely as rivals in the pursuit of power — they step outside the bounds of humanism itself and lose all forms of legal and true legitimacy.
In our present world, wherever individuals are denied the freedom of thought and expression — as judged by their own perception —
the very legitimacy of all those who maintain cooperative or reinforcing relations with dictatorships is automatically vetoed.
Only those humanists retain legitimacy who genuinely and actively work to reform and transform dictatorships toward the belief in and respect for freedom of thought and expression —
as recognized by those whose freedoms have been violated.
In summary:
Dictatorships and dictators possess no legitimacy — not even to lose.
Humanists and seculars may possess legitimacy, but when they sustain or oppose dictators merely through power rivalry, they too forfeit both their legal and true legitimacy.