I have had a sociological theory for a while now:

There has been two dominate breeds of homo sapiens: the people and the dragons.

The dragons, through out history, have been driven by greed, whether it's capturing more land, hoarding gold, or accumulating power.

The people have been driven by cooperation and community, whether it's sharing a cup of sugar, or giving money to those in need, or building a barn as a community.

The problem we've faced with Capitalist Realism is the argument that deep down we are all dragons whether we want to admit it or not, when actually dragons are a tiny, tiny tiny percent of the population determined to benefit at the expense of everyone else.

While I don't necessarily disagree, who do you think is in the shadows? I've always said that Reagan being an actor with Alzheimer was a pro, not a con, to the GOP, but I've never subscribed to shadow order conspiracies. Do we have proof that there are puppet master and whom they might be?

I disagree.

Free, in this context, means not captive (i.e. not controlled by a single entity). Speech is free. It just isn't free from consequences in the wider standing of society. And most people do know that (my examples highlight it - should I have no consequences for inciting a lynch mob to kill your family if I didn't string the noose?).

Don't let bad faith actors force us to do...anything! They're bad faith actors!

That's an interesting question and highlights the gap between use of the phrase. The question is: who is free? The individual absolutely free from all consequence, or society to be free from dangerous, damaging, and intolerable behaviour?

Does it mean freedom from impediment? Are you are allowed to say whatever you want, but the community has a right to discourage, deplatform, and criminalise the effects of those words have in breaking the social contract (e.g. attempting to cause panic, promoting a riot, trying to over throw democracy, racial intimidation, etc)?

Or does it mean freedom from consequences? Are you allowed to say whatever you want and the community has no right to recourse for the effects of speech on the community (i.e. you can say literally anything and the without fear that it will negatively impact your standing within the wider community and social contract)? Does that mean we should allow people to promote ISIS? Or send direct threats to you and your family, if they never intend to act upon them? How about promote your family be seen as animals to be driven out or killed? Should those speech actions be free from consequences? Even if it escalates to a wider group or is given from a position of authority?

I do not believe the latter is a tenable way of maintaining any form of contract and only enhances the power of bad faith actors. It's also only ever selectively employed.

The same people that tend to promote the latter in cases that suit their cause, threaten officials, promote hate, and drive division are the same group banning history books in schools. We cannot let people in bad faith muddy the waters of what free speech mean.

This is a big thing that turned me off lemmygrad and expanded my political horizon (I was rather hardcore MLM). The more I've read and interacted in different groups, the more I've realised my inherent stance is anti-authoritarian and seek a collectivist way of life.