A link between Thomas Jefferson, Warfare, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? [...] The tree of liberty must be refreshed [periodically], with the blood of patriots and tyrants; [for these sacrifices are] its natural [fertilizer]." -- Thomas (bad-ass) Jefferson

I just love that quote. It's message is so powerful, that reading it will simultaneously bring a tear of joy to my eye, and ignite a fire in my heart, that endows me with an emotional strength that can move mountains. Yes, Thomas Jefferson was no doubt an intellectual bad-ass, and with the exception of his slave holdings, one of my favorite, if not, my most favored founding father. But the entire group was so chalk-full of high minded, freedom loving intellectuals, that picking a favorite is not an easy task.

Where are men of his caliber today?

He was a rare combination of both intellectual *AND* testicular fortitude, and none exist who possess even a modicum of his talents these days. Heck, I would have followed him into a campaign against even the most formidable of enemies, and achieved victory, or happily died trying. No one seems to have a yearning for glory anymore, much less real freedoms. We're all just a bunch of pathetic and apathetic slaves, waiting for our next menial assignment, or death, whichever comes first. Which reminds me of Aristotle's famous quip: "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.

Sadly, we are now many generations into Aristotle's warning -- both here in the USA, and more broadly in the "West". Apathy is no longer a fringe menace, no, it has become normalized! And there is no doubt we tolerate far too much from the "enemies of freedom" than we should. Unless we find a way to re-ignite the "fire in our bellies", we will succumb to our own helplessness. It will be as if we hacked off our own arms and our own legs, and then attempted to engage our enemies in warfare. It is hopeless to believe that we can achieve victory by coddling our enemies -- coddling only empowers them! To achieve victory, we must destroy our enemies with extreme prejudice, quickly, and without mercy. And we must never apologize for protecting our "right to exist" by utilizing our superior technology to achieve those ends. War cannot be waged halfheartedly, for it were, it would violate the "lesson" of the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics.

A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT REGARDING CONFLICT (aka: war)

War is synonymous with "thermodynamic processes", in that, the proverbial manifestation of war presents us with opposing "thermodynamic bodies" (aka: armies, or more generally, sides), which are initially isolated within rooms that exist within a greater "house of conflict". Think of the "conflict of war" as a large house, a house containing two or more rooms, and in each room resides an army, an army who's sole directive is to seek and destroy it's enemies who are occupying the adjacent rooms. However, the armies cannot initiate the fighting themselves, because none of the armies possess the power to breach the walls, so they must quietly wait for an external force to break-down these walls, before they can begin fighting (aka: mixing). We can think of the walls as being constructed of an impermeable substance called peace. And until the "walls of peace" are broken down, say, via political turmoil, the armies are forced to sit silently and wait.

We need to also observe that when the armies initially marched into their respective rooms, the rooms were filled with the noise and chaos of their movements, but now the rooms have become silent, or in "thermodynamic terms", each room has reached a "state of equilibrium". But equilibrium is a subjective term, and does not in any way insinuate that all the rooms share the same amount of measurable energy. For instance: even though the ambient temperature/moisture levels in each room may be different (because of more, or less human bodies), or the stench level may be different (because some soldiers bathe more than others), the smells and temperatures in each room have "mixed down" to a point where they cannot mix any more. Therefore, each room as reached its own "unique state of equilibrium".

For the sake of pragmatism, we will ignore dynamic events such as flatulence, and assume the armies are in a state of "suspended animation".

So far, we've defined a structure (a house and some rooms) and the bodies (armies) that will facilitate a "thermodynamic-like process", but nothing will happen until we allow the armies to mix. We need an event that be the impetus of the thermodynamic process, which will lead us to the inevitable conclusion of our little lesson today... BREAKING NEWS: POLITICAL TURMOIL ERUPTS, AND THE WALLS OF PEACE ARE NOW DESTROYED... When the "walls of peace" are broken down, all of the armies find themselves immediately contained in a single, large room. Chaos quickly ensues, and as the armies engage in battle and "mix each small victory between two soldiers down" until their entire struggle reaches the ultimate "equilibrium of victory", the lesson of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is observed.

BUT WHAT IS THE LESSON RICK?

The lesson is: From the moment that the "walls of peace" are broken down, and up until the moment that absolute victory has been achieved, we must never interrupt the "equalizing process" by rebuilding the walls. Because when we fight against our enemies, and we are unwilling to achieve absolute victory (aka: equilibrium), the potential for future "thermodynamic energy exchange" (aka: war) is ever-present!

We can see fine examples of our past failures, and the "thermodynamic potential" they present, when observing the never ending "war on terror" and the never ending stalemate on the Korean peninsula, and when we juxtapose those two unresolved conflicts against the decisive victories over Japan and Germany --> WE SHALL BECOME ENLIGHTENED!

Ever heard of a Japanese or German terrorist attacking the West? Well, if you have, he was not motivated by WW2. Therefore, thermodynamics teaches us that we must achieve absolute victory at all costs, because if we do not achieve absolute victory, we will be forced to fight the war again, and again, until equilibrium is finally achieved.

These are the laws that govern the universe in which we live, so we would be wise to learn from them. Sure, we may not want to accept their cold bitter realities, but we are bound by their rules nonetheless.

Can the logical contradictions inherent in the "right of free speech" be resolved objectively?

Free speech is just one of many rights that our modern
societies protect by law, and for those of us, like myself,
who belief deeply in the importance of maintaining this
right in its "purest fundamental form", and simultaneously
value reason, logic, and objectivity --  how do *WE* resolve
the conflicts that arise when we're confronted with the
"famous contradiction" of:

 "BUT, YOU CANNOT YELL FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER"

Many have attempted to invalidate this argument, but IMO
their attempts have utterly failed, because they only attack
the argument superficially. In the presentation that
follows, I intend to prove that there is no direct path from
the "implied cause" to the "implied tragedy", in fact, the
"implied tragedy" is merely a consequence of a greater flaw
in our collective human psychology, and *NOT* a direct
result of unfettered free speech.

So before we dissect the famous contradiction, and judge its
merits objectively, we need to define the "lines in the
sand". There are two competing opinions as to how speech
should be protected. The first is summarized as:

  "SPEECH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, AND SINCE THE
  INTERPRETATION OF SPEECH IS *SO* SUBJECTIVE THAT LIMITING
  SPEECH BASED ON THE CONSEQUENCES THAT IT *MAY* PROVOKE IS
  A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WILL ULTIMATELY DESTROY THE ENTIRE
  CONCEPT -- SPEECH MUST NEVER BE LIMITED -- NOT IN ANY WAY,
  SHAPE OR FORM"
           
and the modified version as:

  "YES, SPEECH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, BUT SOME FORMS OF
  SPEECH ARE THE IMPETUS OF TRAGEDY, SO IN SPECIFIC
  CIRCUMSTANCES, WE MUST LIMIT SPEECH TO PROTECT THE GENERAL
  PUBLIC"

The modified form argues (via the "famous contradiction")
that a pure interpretation of free speech presents two
possible consequences, and therefor must be limited because:

  (1) YOU CANNOT ABUSE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO "DISTURB
  THE PEACE".
 
In other words: you're an asshole and a coward, who is
hiding behind the protections of "free speech" to shield
yourself from the consequences of harassing innocent people.
However, the second implication is far more troubling
because its consequences are of the tragic variety:

  (2) BY YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER, YOU COULD SET
  OFF A CHAIN REACTION OF FEAR THAT WILL RESULT IN THE
  INJURY OR DEATH OF THEATER PATRONS, VIA TRAMPLING, AS THEY
  ATTEMPT TO EXIT.

Both of these justifications speak of real life consequences
that can occur if we do not heed their warnings. In the
first implication, we have speech that harasses (a
nuisance), and in the second, speech that provokes (a cause
to action).

The first is easily defeated with the counter argument of:
"You have no right *NOT* to be offended", but the second is
not as easily defeated, because as we know, when humans
become overwhelmed with fear (for instance, the fear of
being burned alive), they will (generally speaking)
instinctively ignore their capacity for empathy and
compassion, and will instead, evoke the single-purposed
modality of self-preservation! This is how we end up with
gruesome tragedies where piles of people are cooked alive at
the exits of a building, when otherwise, they might have
escaped unscathed.

However, we need to ask ourselves the tough question: Who is
*ULTIMATELY* responsible for this tragedy? I implore you:
can words *alone* reach into our psyche and disable emotions
at will, causing us to loose our capacity to feel empathy
and compassion? Or cause our legs to become animated and our
feet to trample on the bodies of those who are less
physically agile than we, as though we were marionettes
dangling helplessly from the ends of strings manipulated by
malevolent beings who harbor a penchant for puppeteering
Greek Tragedy?

At what point do *WE* take responsibility for *OUR* actions
in this chain of tragic events? Can we solely blame the
asshole who yelled fire? Or must we look deep inside
ourselves and admit that, whilst yelling fire, when there is
no fire is indeed rude, abandoning compassion and trampling
our peers to death, simply to serve our own selfish goals,
might just be the ultimate form of rudeness!

The realization that, in order for the tragic consequences
of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" to become reality,
not *ONLY* must the abuser of free speech make his false
statement, but the *ENTIRE* body of the theater must react
in an irrational and chaotic manner -- break *ONE* link of
the chain, and the tragedy is avoided!

So the premise that we should limit speech because "yelling
fire in a crowed theater" could result in tragedy,
incorrectly places *ALL* the blame on the asshole who did
nothing more than tell a lie. That's it, he told a lie! But
it ignores that the patrons are the *DIRECT* causation of
the injury and/or death -- the asshole is merely the
indirect cause.

This "famous contradiction" to free speech has
(historically) been so effective because it utilizes the
propagandic technique of tapping into pure emotion -- before
you have a chance to contemplate the validity of the claim,
emotion shortcuts the evaluation process -- in fact, the
same irrational fear that causes the theater patron's to
trample their peers to death, is harnessed and utilized
cunningly by the contradiction, to convince *YOU*, to
trample on the freedom of speech!


  BUT RICK, WITHOUT THE LIE, THIS CHAIN OF EVENTS COULD
  NEVER HAVE MANIFESTED!

True, not this *EXACT* chain of events, but when people
interact, the potential for irrational behavior, which
results in injury, is always a possibility. And we would be
naive to claim that "yelling fire in a crowed theater" is
the *ONLY* speech that could ever evoke a chaotic reaction.
In fact, there are *SO* many instances where speech could
cause irrational or chaotic responses, that to limit them
all would be tantamount to silencing the entire human race
forever.

But the rabbit hole goes much deeper!

Even though we have now exposed the weakness of this "famous
contradiction", and shattered it's emotional mechanism into
tiny shards with a giant hammer, we cannot celebrate,
because we must now face the cold reality that *WE* have
tolerated implicit forms of limited speech long before the
"famous contradiction" ever raised it's ugly head. Little
inconsistencies that are impossible to reconcile with a
belief that "speech must not be limited in any way shape or
form". And while we've managed to defeat the "famous
contradiction" today, we may find that the implicit gremlins
of which i speak, are much more difficult to slay.

Freedom of speech takes on many forms. We know that it
protects our opinions, and our dissents. It allows us to
object to our government policies without fear of reprisals,
and ridicule our leaders. And more generally, helps to
foster a marketplace of ideas that are free from the
tyrannical editing of malevolents. But have we considered
the impracticality of living in a world where free speech is
used as a justification to harass and to interrupt?

  RICK, WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS. YOU *DON'T* HAVE A RIGHT
  TO NOT BE OFFENDED.

Being offended is one thing, but being harassed and impeded
is quite another! Suppose every time a group engaged in
conversation, a third, and unwelcome party, injected
themselves into the conversation, preventing the original
participants from communicating. Or suppose you are jogging
in the park, and some asshole that happens to disagree with
your political opinions, decides to hurl obscenities at you,
constantly!

Sure, there are public disturbance laws on the books, but by
preventing these vile creatures from speaking, we are
limiting their "unfettered right to free speech". We can't
have it both ways folks. Either we are willing to restrict
speech in *SOME* circumstances, or not restrict it at all.
But no matter how we may justify our position, limiting free
speech via "public nuisance" laws is limiting free speech.
Plain and simple.

How do we reconcile this?