2 ms·

Genuine question, why not? Why is paternalism bad, because it's an offensive idea to a 21st century audience? It's a funny aspect of the whole free expression t

Genuine question, why not? Why is paternalism bad, because it's an offensive idea to a 21st century audience? It's a funny aspect of the whole free expression thing that the only thing you cannot question, because it immediately evokes this kind of response, is the system itself. Isn't that supposed to be the point? I didn't make a war cry at all, I think fanatic questioning of authority is just the dogma of our time, in every domain, not just speech. And that's very new. We have India and China, thousands of years old civilizations still kicking without any absolutist notion of free speech, but I must accept the idea that any person can broadcast to a football stadium full of people, an experiment of the last two decades or otherwise I'm a despot?

Gareth321 5y ago
There are libraries of works dedicated to this from the Enlightenment onwards. There are two tracks you can pursue here: 1. Practical examples of authoritarianism working. Does the suppression of dissent result in better life outcomes for citizens? It's a fair hypothesis, and is easy to test. Explore hundreds of civilizations over thousands of years and try to find examples of it working out well for citizens. IMHO, there aren't many. 2. Read the political, historical, and philosophical writings of the greats on this subject: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson. They provide far better arguments against the suppression of dissent than I ever could. Their arguments are extremely well considered, extremely convincing, and backed by historical examples. Personally, I try hard to base my position on tangible evidence. "Does this thing actually result in the outcome I desire?" Because I can't find any good examples of authoritarianism working, and many good examples of democracy working, I side firmly with the latter. However, I must also admit that the internet is a major human evolution. It is unprecedented in its scale and reach. Social media is causing enormous harm, and we are operating under the de facto pretense that this harm is worth the benefits. It could be that social media is undermining how democracy works, and that we need to find a better way forward. I can admit that, but I am yet to see convincing arguments for a) the existential danger to democracy, and b) a better social structure than democracy.

Gareth321 5y ago

There are libraries of works dedicated to this from the Enlightenment onwards. There are two tracks you can pursue here: 1. Practical examples of authoritarianism working. Does the suppression of dissent result in better life outcomes for citizens? It's a fair hypothesis, and is easy to test. Explore hundreds of civilizations over thousands of years and try to find examples of it working out well for citizens. IMHO, there aren't many. 2. Read the political, historical, and philosophical writings of the greats on this subject: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson. They provide far better arguments against the suppression of dissent than I ever could. Their arguments are extremely well considered, extremely convincing, and backed by historical examples. Personally, I try hard to base my position on tangible evidence. "Does this thing actually result in the outcome I desire?" Because I can't find any good examples of authoritarianism working, and many good examples of democracy working, I side firmly with the latter. However, I must also admit that the internet is a major human evolution. It is unprecedented in its scale and reach. Social media is causing enormous harm, and we are operating under the de facto pretense that this harm is worth the benefits. It could be that social media is undermining how democracy works, and that we need to find a better way forward. I can admit that, but I am yet to see convincing arguments for a) the existential danger to democracy, and b) a better social structure than democracy.