I think my thoughts are quite free, many people are quite shocked when I say I do not believe fully in democracy, yet I still think and speak these thoughts; I still read up on alternatives such as Communism and Anarchism (though neither I have been very happy with as being better than democracy) despite what others think of such persuits.

Yet I still think I am conducting some kind of subconcious censorship of some thoughts, which may be limiting my mind's freedom, but I can never be sure of this.

Obviously there are sexual taboo subjects that almost everyone will push out of their mind as soon as they occur to them, but I guess those are not what you mean.

I too keep an open mind to nondemocratic government, but so far everything I've encountered fails a simple and important test:

If leaders misbehave, it should be possible to remove them from leadership without using violence.

Only democracy (in its many forms) and total anarchy (in which there are no leaders at all) pass the test. I believe the latter to be rather impractical, so democracy ends up as the least bad choice. It allows bad behavior, but at least there always is a nonviolent way of stopping it, although that may be difficult.

There are some concepts that I would reject as "impossible" even though I'm naive about them. One of those is the idea of a large quantum computer with which previously very difficult problems could be solved in seconds, making traditional cryptography useless. I guess I just don't want that to be possible.

Of course those might make new types of cryptography possible, that can't be cracked by the same quantum computers. In that case I have no reason to worry. All I can say about current quantum cryptography is that sending single polarized photons seems rather impractical.

Regarding systems of government, I don't really have a solution I can name it. I tend to throw more abstract concepts around such as "everything is about balance" and then *try* to make the best of it in practice. Is democracy the most balanced system? It might be that at least among all that are well known so far, but this doesn't mean we can't come up with something better.

I think we do have to start with fundamental basics to get there though, so I guess thinking in abstract concepts like "balance" is a start. Maybe the perfect balance of power and freedom between people is some sort of an orderly anarchy where the government is not a construct made of people, but rather a natural and invisible law guiding human behaviours in the most balanced way possible. If there is balance between self interest and selflessness in a way that the two complete each other, than people would *want* to act for the benefit of themselves and the community as a whole equally, because the two would be apparently intermingled. The only government needed here is this constant awareness of these laws, which would be self imposed by the very nature of who we are.

I could call it a nirvana of social systems, a perfect balance, a perfect self governing society. It goes beyond the classic anarchy and democracy or anything we've tried so far.

Regarding quantum computers I think you probably wouldn't have much to worry about. It would probably just move computing on a whole new level in which the equivalents of everything from the previous level (and more), including cryptography, would exist.

About sexual taboos, I didn't quite refer to those, but I think that there is a difference between deliberate suppressing of certain kinds of thoughts because of reasonable concern and doing it because of fear induced by social norms when the thought really can't have such negative repercursions. In the end, everyone defines their own boundaries, but at least we have to be aware of those boundaries. If we're not then we are self limiting without realizing it, which is bad.

A thought, when it is only a thought, doesn't harm anyone. So what would those reasonable concerns be?
On the other hand, often wishing for something you can't get isn't very good for your mental health.

You sort of partially answer your own question, but the potential harm could also be done through trying to realize some of these bad thoughts. If you are going there with your mind too often, you are increasing chances of actually succeeding at materializing them.

That there is this connection between thoughts and reality is agnostic towards whether their outcome in reality may be positive or negative. As always, freedom, knowledge, power, englightenment all bear some responsibility on the person having them.

But as long as we know our boundaries instead of being blind to them. As long as we are the ones who set these boundaries willingly and not because of undefined fears, we can be fully free to think.

There is something to be said about positive and negative too though. In case of using thoughts to evolve as human beings by daring to think beyond, we are doing it for a positive cause, a positive evolution. So if the outcome of certain thoughts is completely opposite of that, something negative and backwards, than this is the territory which we should responsibly avoid.

Going where no man has gone before may be an ultimate principle of evolution, and in itself it is a positive thing, but it doesn't guarantee that the "places" we go will be all beautiful and positive which means that in our journey we should always be responsible enough to recognize when the place we visited brings negative things into us, and then mark them as off limits, moving on to the next destination.

So we may dare to think the unthinkable, probe even the most provocative and most negative thoughts possible, but only for the first time, only to explore their possible effects, and if they are negative, avoid them further. And yes, I am imagining this journey figuratively as a journey of the Enterprise crew, except that instead of traveling through the physical universe we are also traveling through the universe of fantasy and imagination and everything our brain can construct (all thoughts possible). When Enterprise approaches a new destination and finds that what they just discovered has destructive negative effects, they sure wont dwell in it and continue exposing themselves to these negative influences. No, captain Picard would just order the crew to "get us out of here".

That's what we should do with thoughts that we find are of negative influence towards the evolution of us as individuals and humans in whole.

Just move to the next destination, but do keep moving.

Looks like this topic partially inspired an essay I just stumbled on called "Freedom to Think as an Exercise Physiologist". I didn't read it in full yet (putting it up for reading later though), but it sparked something I'll mention in another topic, regarding the future of Libervis.com.

One interesting thing though is that the author used a quote from my signature and attributed it to Libervis Network even though I didn't (nor anyone else here as far as I know) originally say this. It was said at the end of the "We" documentary and was uncredited, although it was said by a recorded voice talking about protecting our constitutional rights because noone will do it for us.