4 ms·
Here is the full quote. I think its even better: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It w
by feralimal 6y ago
Here is the full quote. I think its even better:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
- pavlov 6y agoIs fact-checking tyranny? No.
- sneak 6y agoPeople who wish it to be difficult for millions or billions to read anything they deem "false" is accurately described as "a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims".
- smsm42 6y agoIf the only information allowed is the one approved by designated "fact checkers" (the ideal most major social networks strive for, and most fact-checking enthusiasts would wholeheartedly approve) - it is the most complete example of tyranny (at least in the information space) possible. Of course, if fact checking merely exists as a set of opinions - it doesn't become tyrannical by itself. It's just an opinion of somebody on the question of what the facts are. But we all know it's not how it works. At least not how it works on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
- klyrs 6y agoThis presumes that the robber baron has a conscience which perceives the suffering of an outgroup to be a bad thing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MacsHeadroom 6y agoNo, it explicitly doesn't. The implication is that the robber barons are pure self-interested evil. Self-interest means they aren't focused on you, as opposed to well intentioned self appointed saviors.
- crocodiletears 6y agoLewis's more philosophical works are massively underappreciated for how insightful, nuanced, and prescient they often were. If I were the kind of omnipotent moral busy-body he warns about, I'd swap every copy of 1984 in every primary school with a collection of his essays.