You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Eugine_Nier comments on Counterfactual Coalitions - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: Larks 16 February 2012 09:42PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (28)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 17 February 2012 07:10:19PM 3 points [-]

In the real world, the more powerful the autocrat, the more absolute the dictatorship, the more they care about what people say or think, the more restricted free speech is.

I think you may have reversed cause and effect there.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 17 February 2012 07:32:49PM *  5 points [-]

Cause and effect are entangled in the history of human deeds, since anticipation of effects becomes the cause of deeds that produce those effects.

But to offer a counterexample to your belief, did Turkmenbashi's renaming of months and days increase the security of his power? Or did he rename them because he already had near-absolute power and it was his whim to control even further how people talked and thought? I think the latter.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 February 2012 03:18:34AM 2 points [-]

Good point.

Comment author: taelor 18 February 2012 08:37:42AM *  1 point [-]

I think what Eugine_Nier meant is that people who already have an interest in controlling other's ideas are morelikely to seek out office in an autocratic government, as opposed to autocracy having some magical corrupting nature that makes people want to engage in arbitrary censorship. This would pose a practical problem that hypothetical advocates of might or might not be able to resolve in a satisfactory way. I should note that the marriage between freedom of speach and democracy hasn't always been all sunshine and daisies: it took less than a decade after the ratification of the first amendment for the US to pass the sedition act.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 20 February 2012 09:37:22AM 2 points [-]

I think what Eugine_Nier meant is that people who already have an interest in controlling other's ideas are morelikely to seek out office in an autocratic government,

Eugine_Nier should then communicate more clearly what he meant.

And this wouldn't explain why hereditary absolute monarchs that did NOT seek out office are also likely to censor and control speech.

as opposed to autocracy having some magical corrupting nature that makes people want to engage in arbitrary censorship.

Nothing magic here, I believe people wanting influence over other people's thought-processes is a part of human nature. When people can fully satisfy physical wants, influencing how other people think becomes their main goal then. When they're movie-makers, they make movies. When they're philosophers, they write papers, When they're autocrats, they send their secret agencies against dissenters.