3 ms·
Why not take a cynical approach? If free expression is useful, then countries cracking down on it are shooting themselves in the foot. If they want to do it, wh
by anovikov 4y ago
Why not take a cynical approach? If free expression is useful, then countries cracking down on it are shooting themselves in the foot. If they want to do it, why stop them? They are delisting themselves from the global competition: set up attractive immigration programs to pick out their most talented population and let the rest sink to Russia/N. Korea level.
- dbspin 4y agoBecause no country exists in isolation. Where norms are established, they spread. Where governments become authoritarian without repercussion, authoritarianism becomes a more favourable option to those in power. Basically it sets up the potential for a really bad local maxima - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
- kbenson 4y ago> Why not take a cynical approach? Because things such as local maxima and minima exist, and "local" could be on timescales of decades or centuries. Also, what metrics are we measuring by? GDP? Happiness? Scientific progress? Species expansion? It's entirely possible that reducing free expression results in a more stable but more stagnant society, and while that may have immediate benefits, could leave everyone in that society worse off on average than the alternative in a few decades. To be fair, it's entirely possible that too much free expression could do the same, and the optimal path is in the middle somewhere. I think this is often overlooked, and people think that more freedom of expression is always a good thing, which is odd, because I'm not sure anything taken to an extreme end of a spectrum is necessarily a good thing, and I'm not sure freedom of expression is any different.
- thrown_22 4y agoBecause I don't want to live in a country that sinks to Russia/N. Korea levels.