= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Estarlio comments on How to Build a Community - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (229)
Perhaps so, but a dictator at least has to take far fewer concerns from far fewer of the people into account.
Indeed this seems to be one of the ways to identify a failing democracy: Is power becoming more heavily concentrated into a smaller number of hands?
That depends on the political stability of a state. If there a high danger of rebellion he has to take the interest of more people into account.
Dictorships often have to surpress a wide array of views because they rightly fear that free speech would topple their rule. On the other hand a state like the US is very robust to political speech. You can't change much about the power structures in the US through political speech.
A corrupt politican in China is a lot more vunerable to attacks via free speech than a corrupt politican in the US.
Julian Assange made the point that free speech is allowed in the West because you can't change anything with it. As the US also get's more politically unstable you have US politicians who want consider the act of a journalist asking a prospective source for information about classified documents to be a felony.
True. I suppose what I'm trying to express is that he (or she!) has to be less interested in the common good of society. It seems like, in a dictatorship, you have to treat far fewer people well.