4 ms·

I disagree with most of this. Democracy is merely a form of government. People can be free and not democratically governed. Yes a functional society must have

I disagree with most of this. Democracy is merely a form of government. People can be free and not democratically governed. Yes a functional society must have laws but say you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions? I think no, they're not less free. That would mean that democracy is important to freedom only if it's the only way to generate that set of rules and I don't think it is. The right dictator can come up with the same rules as a democratic government.

mabub24 9y ago
> you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions? Yes. Because that's baked into your premise: > the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. These are not the same sets of laws. These are not the same societies. They are not the same systems. Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. They are entirely at the whim of your AI. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free. > The right dictator can come up with the same rules as a democratic government. They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free. It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom. If they did, they would not be a dictator.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > These are not the same sets of laws. > Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. Sorry, I did miss that part. I'll revise to say "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot realistically change the rules, so losing that technicality makes me no less free. > A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free. > They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free. You keep bringing democracy in where I don't believe it belongs. I'm talking about freedom, not democracy. > It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom. I don't think so. A dictator who values freedom can ensure their subjects have it. A person living under the right dictator would have more freedom than one living under the wrong (but still valid) democracy, being freed from the burden of governance. I think where we differ is you value the freedom to influence government, no matter how little above all whereas I value just about everything else more.
  - mabub24 9y ago
    > "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". > The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot realistically change the rules, so losing that technicality makes me no less free. But the loss of the individual freedom to determine the rules is also the loss of freedom for a society to determine the rules for itself. That is profoundly meaningful. Every dystopian narrative in modern history has been about that point. "Perfect" societies are as artificial as "rightful" dictators. Freedom without democracy is, from the view of a democracy, not freedom at all. > You keep bringing democracy in where I don't believe it belongs. I'm talking about freedom, not democracy. I disagree, I'm saying they are the same thing. A democracy expresses our freedom and our freedom is expressed through our democracy. They cannot be separated. I think that is our main disagreement. > A person living under the right dictator would have more freedom than one living under the wrong (but still valid) democracy, being freed from the burden of governance. Governance is not a burden. This is why I say devaluing freedom is devaluing democracy. And why the "right" dictator is still a dictator, and therefore they cannot but perpetuate a less free system. Our democracies are a system that allows us to trust a representative from society to project our mandate, to express our will, amongst others with mutual trust placed in them. If they do not, then we can vote them out. It is not a burden to vote or to take part in politics. On the contrary, it is a singular symbol of our freedoms. That does not mean democracies are perfect. Lord knows they are not. But, democracies are the best we have. It's not an add-on, we either have it or we are less free.
    - Veratyr 9y ago
      > But the loss of the individual freedom to determine the rules is also the loss of freedom for a society to determine the rules for itself. Freedom of society and freedom of the individual are two different things and a society can have different levels of both. Say you have a democratic wolf and sheep society, where wolves are the majority and treat the sheep as a lower class, treat them horribly and basically just farm them for food. As a wolf in a this society governed by wolves, you may feel quite free, because your wishes are reflected by many and the changes you aim for tend to happen. How though, would you feel as a sheep? Technically you have the same individual freedom as a wolf but at a societal level, you are powerless. You live a terrible life and there's nothing you can do about it because of the very democratic system that's intended to ensure your freedom. I believe the sheep would be more free in a benevolent dictatorship. A dictator could give the sheep green grass, sunshine, freedom from being eaten, freedom to live a long and happy life and much more. All it would take is giving up the ultimately useless theoretical ability to participate in democracy. The wolves could be too, perhaps they could eat chickens or somesuch. > Governance is not a burden. [...] It is not a burden to vote or to take part in politics. To some, it is. Democracy places responsibility on all its participants and being relieved of that responsibility is a form of freedom. In a dictatorial society, I have the freedom to spend time I'd spend participating in the democratic process doing other things. If the dictator makes a bad decision, I am in no way responsible for it.
gwright 9y ago
I think you are abstracting away some key details of what is more accurately called a "liberal democracy" (vs. just "democracy"). These details are often left out of casual conversation about "democracy" and "freedom". For example: * fair and free elections * representative form of government (not a "tyranny of the majority") * limited government * individual rights that can not be usurped by majority rule * separation of powers and checks and balances * rule of law A "democracy" is not just having laws or holding elections. The nature of the laws and the nature of the processes involved in creating the laws are critical elements that distinguish a liberal democracy from other systems of government.

mabub24 9y ago

> you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions? Yes. Because that's baked into your premise: > the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. These are not the same sets of laws. These are not the same societies. They are not the same systems. Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. They are entirely at the whim of your AI. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free. > The right dictator can come up with the same rules as a democratic government. They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free. It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom. If they did, they would not be a dictator.

Veratyr 9y ago
> These are not the same sets of laws. > Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. Sorry, I did miss that part. I'll revise to say "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot realistically change the rules, so losing that technicality makes me no less free. > A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free. > They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free. You keep bringing democracy in where I don't believe it belongs. I'm talking about freedom, not democracy. > It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom. I don't think so. A dictator who values freedom can ensure their subjects have it. A person living under the right dictator would have more freedom than one living under the wrong (but still valid) democracy, being freed from the burden of governance. I think where we differ is you value the freedom to influence government, no matter how little above all whereas I value just about everything else more.
- mabub24 9y ago
  > "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". > The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot realistically change the rules, so losing that technicality makes me no less free. But the loss of the individual freedom to determine the rules is also the loss of freedom for a society to determine the rules for itself. That is profoundly meaningful. Every dystopian narrative in modern history has been about that point. "Perfect" societies are as artificial as "rightful" dictators. Freedom without democracy is, from the view of a democracy, not freedom at all. > You keep bringing democracy in where I don't believe it belongs. I'm talking about freedom, not democracy. I disagree, I'm saying they are the same thing. A democracy expresses our freedom and our freedom is expressed through our democracy. They cannot be separated. I think that is our main disagreement. > A person living under the right dictator would have more freedom than one living under the wrong (but still valid) democracy, being freed from the burden of governance. Governance is not a burden. This is why I say devaluing freedom is devaluing democracy. And why the "right" dictator is still a dictator, and therefore they cannot but perpetuate a less free system. Our democracies are a system that allows us to trust a representative from society to project our mandate, to express our will, amongst others with mutual trust placed in them. If they do not, then we can vote them out. It is not a burden to vote or to take part in politics. On the contrary, it is a singular symbol of our freedoms. That does not mean democracies are perfect. Lord knows they are not. But, democracies are the best we have. It's not an add-on, we either have it or we are less free.
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    > But the loss of the individual freedom to determine the rules is also the loss of freedom for a society to determine the rules for itself. Freedom of society and freedom of the individual are two different things and a society can have different levels of both. Say you have a democratic wolf and sheep society, where wolves are the majority and treat the sheep as a lower class, treat them horribly and basically just farm them for food. As a wolf in a this society governed by wolves, you may feel quite free, because your wishes are reflected by many and the changes you aim for tend to happen. How though, would you feel as a sheep? Technically you have the same individual freedom as a wolf but at a societal level, you are powerless. You live a terrible life and there's nothing you can do about it because of the very democratic system that's intended to ensure your freedom. I believe the sheep would be more free in a benevolent dictatorship. A dictator could give the sheep green grass, sunshine, freedom from being eaten, freedom to live a long and happy life and much more. All it would take is giving up the ultimately useless theoretical ability to participate in democracy. The wolves could be too, perhaps they could eat chickens or somesuch. > Governance is not a burden. [...] It is not a burden to vote or to take part in politics. To some, it is. Democracy places responsibility on all its participants and being relieved of that responsibility is a form of freedom. In a dictatorial society, I have the freedom to spend time I'd spend participating in the democratic process doing other things. If the dictator makes a bad decision, I am in no way responsible for it.

gwright 9y ago

I think you are abstracting away some key details of what is more accurately called a "liberal democracy" (vs. just "democracy"). These details are often left out of casual conversation about "democracy" and "freedom". For example: * fair and free elections * representative form of government (not a "tyranny of the majority") * limited government * individual rights that can not be usurped by majority rule * separation of powers and checks and balances * rule of law A "democracy" is not just having laws or holding elections. The nature of the laws and the nature of the processes involved in creating the laws are critical elements that distinguish a liberal democracy from other systems of government.