= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GreenRoot comments on Politics Discussion Thread February 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (146)
What evidence is there for the assertion (by e.g. Moldbug) that democracy and liberalism has made the world a worse place: by the usual measures of peace and prosperity? Even if I buy the cynical story regarding the nature and origins of the current world order why shouldn't my conclusion be that they're doing a pretty good job?
What do you mean by "made the world a worse place"? Worse than it was before democracy and liberalism started spreading, i.e. pre-1700s? Or worse today than it would have been today if democracy and liberalism hadn't spread? The first question seems easy (we're more peaceful and prosperous than the past), the second a nearly impossible counterfactual, depending heavily on what government systems and philosophies we'd have instead.
I admit to not being clear what the claim is myself. I'm responding to to something that is routinely implied-- and implicit in a lot of reactionary rhetoric-- but for which I have never seen an extended defense. Steel-manning would recommend the second choice-- but then, people in this thread are defending the former interpretation (at least in limited circumstances).
There might be good ways of evaluating the counterfactual claim. For example, we might examine measures we wouldn't expect technological changes to alter-- and see if monarchies performed better by those measures. Though of course-- the extent to which a government encourages or discourages innovation and economic growth is central to the question.