And yet, we've had libel and slander laws forever. The government has never not regulated bullshitting, all serious debate is over the precise boundaries, not whether it should be done.
Maybe Millenials are just more honest about it, and decline to label regulation that does only what they are happy with as “Free Speech”.
No, it doesn't. It says that many are in favor of colleges regulating some on-campus speech that is deliberately offensive. Even to the extent that the colleges are public and thus even relevant to “free speech” considerations, that's a combination of context and intent to offend, not mere capacity to offend, that is at issue.
(It separately says that many would support the government regulating “certain types of offensive speech”, which does not provide enough information to support that the basis is mere capacity to offend; the types of things that constitute per se defamation are arguably a “certain type of offensive speech”, for instance; vague categories are good for getting big scary numbers, but weak for supporting concrete conclusions.)
I agree that it feels inflated compared to potentially less emotionally provocative question about freedom of speech as a fundamental concept.
Then again, I wouldn't be shocked if that is the the general stance of a lot of people. Speaking as a Canadian, these types of government restrictions on hateful speech are written into law and largely uncontested in politics.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...
I really don’t understand people who are more afraid of a racial slur (to be clear, I strongly disapprove of that kind of thing) than of losing freedom of thought and of expression.
Prohibitions where intent is an essential component, and judging intent is essential to applying the prohibition are not new in campus regulation, or in civil and criminal law, for that matter.
But, in any case, that's in implementation issue that is not germane to what support has actually been voiced for.
https://www.dn.pt/portugal/interior/piropos-ja-sao-crime-e-d...
Translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=y&prev...
Democracy is more than just casting a vote. Many non-democracies have elections. Democracies are an elegant and fragile relationship between civic will and laws.
The outcome of a desire for freedom is democracy. You don't start with democracy or install it, people create it and protect it with laws that protect personal freedoms. Most countries with alternate political systems have citizens with less freedoms and rule by law rather than rule of law: you end up with legalism, like in China.
If people feel that democracy is failing them than I would suggest that that exemplifies a shift in profound ideas about freedom that leads to democracy.
From the perspective of a relatively functioning democracy, all other political systems should look worse, should look less free.
Specifically, that the outcome of a desire for freedom is democracy. It's not freedom itself. I still stand with my point, both should not be conflated at the risk of being blind to the shortcomings democracy could have.
Democracy can have shortcomings and still be the best system out there, but being aware of them (questioning freedom vs democracy is one way) prevents our systems from drifting away.
Yes a functional society must have laws but say you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions?
I think no, they're not less free. That would mean that democracy is important to freedom only if it's the only way to generate that set of rules and I don't think it is. The right dictator can come up with the same rules as a democratic government.
* fair and free elections
* representative form of government (not a "tyranny of the majority")
* limited government
* individual rights that can not be usurped by majority rule
* separation of powers and checks and balances
* rule of law
Yes. Because that's baked into your premise:
> the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy.
These are not the same sets of laws. These are not the same societies. They are not the same systems. Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. They are entirely at the whim of your AI. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free.
> The right dictator can come up with the same rules as a democratic government.
They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free. It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom. If they did, they would not be a dictator.
> Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them.
Sorry, I did miss that part. I'll revise to say "the same laws, save for the means of changing them".
The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot realistically change the rules, so losing that technicality makes me no less free.
> A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. By definition that is not democratic, and I would say, less free.
> They could, but that would not mean their dictatorship is a democracy or free.
You keep bringing democracy in where I don't believe it belongs. I'm talking about freedom, not democracy.
> It is a profound hypocrisy for a dictator to say they value freedom.
I don't think so. A dictator who values freedom can ensure their subjects have it. A person living under the right dictator would have more freedom than one living under the wrong (but still valid) democracy, being freed from the burden of governance.
I think where we differ is you value the freedom to influence government, no matter how little above all whereas I value just about everything else more.
> The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot realistically change the rules, so losing that technicality makes me no less free.
But the loss of the individual freedom to determine the rules is also the loss of freedom for a society to determine the rules for itself. That is profoundly meaningful. Every dystopian narrative in modern history has been about that point. "Perfect" societies are as artificial as "rightful" dictators. Freedom without democracy is, from the view of a democracy, not freedom at all.
> You keep bringing democracy in where I don't believe it belongs. I'm talking about freedom, not democracy.
I disagree, I'm saying they are the same thing. A democracy expresses our freedom and our freedom is expressed through our democracy. They cannot be separated. I think that is our main disagreement.
> A person living under the right dictator would have more freedom than one living under the wrong (but still valid) democracy, being freed from the burden of governance.
Governance is not a burden. This is why I say devaluing freedom is devaluing democracy. And why the "right" dictator is still a dictator, and therefore they cannot but perpetuate a less free system. Our democracies are a system that allows us to trust a representative from society to project our mandate, to express our will, amongst others with mutual trust placed in them. If they do not, then we can vote them out. It is not a burden to vote or to take part in politics. On the contrary, it is a singular symbol of our freedoms. That does not mean democracies are perfect. Lord knows they are not. But, democracies are the best we have. It's not an add-on, we either have it or we are less free.
Freedom of society and freedom of the individual are two different things and a society can have different levels of both.
Say you have a democratic wolf and sheep society, where wolves are the majority and treat the sheep as a lower class, treat them horribly and basically just farm them for food. As a wolf in a this society governed by wolves, you may feel quite free, because your wishes are reflected by many and the changes you aim for tend to happen. How though, would you feel as a sheep? Technically you have the same individual freedom as a wolf but at a societal level, you are powerless. You live a terrible life and there's nothing you can do about it because of the very democratic system that's intended to ensure your freedom.
I believe the sheep would be more free in a benevolent dictatorship. A dictator could give the sheep green grass, sunshine, freedom from being eaten, freedom to live a long and happy life and much more. All it would take is giving up the ultimately useless theoretical ability to participate in democracy. The wolves could be too, perhaps they could eat chickens or somesuch.
> Governance is not a burden. [...] It is not a burden to vote or to take part in politics.
To some, it is. Democracy places responsibility on all its participants and being relieved of that responsibility is a form of freedom. In a dictatorial society, I have the freedom to spend time I'd spend participating in the democratic process doing other things. If the dictator makes a bad decision, I am in no way responsible for it.
So to rephrase, what would be the difference between someone doing exactly what a dictator does, same laws, same rules, but elected freely by the people, versus the dictator? It would be the freedom to choose who dictates. Thus, you would have one less freedom, making you less free.
Having said that, you have a good point. I think you're talking about the majority's rule problem. Democracy suffers from that, where you can't individually choose, you need support from others. Now some people have more power to influence, so much so, that they might be indirectly ruling. This practically limits you're freedom to choose who dictates. And given a majority whose singly influenced by a powerful actor, which doesn't listen to you, a benevolent dictator which were to be more considering of your needs and desires, you might actually enjoy your life better and practically have more freedom.
I think this is the situation we find ourselves more and more into. Strong actors are spawning, and they have such powerful influence on large swats of people, that they are tending towards partial dictatorship. Similarly, minorities voices are being shut more and more, so a larhe amount of people are feeling oppression, and their freedom taken away as they lose influence in the votes.
I think younger generations feel this. We need to find ways to reorient democracy, and keep its balance. If not, in practice, it can tend towards the same issues that dictatorships have, granted possibly less damaging, as it should be assumed that at least a majority of people will have what they want.
> So to rephrase, what would be the difference between someone doing exactly what a dictator does, same laws, same rules, but elected freely by the people, versus the dictator? It would be the freedom to choose who dictates. Thus, you would have one less freedom, making you less free.
I think this is similar to the argument made in the other comment.
There are two different kinds of freedom here: The freedom for society to govern itself and the freedom of the individual.
As an individual, if I disagree with my leader, it ultimately makes very little difference whether the leader is a dictator there by force or an elected representative of a majority which will never share my views. As an individual, I have no influence on society either way.
My belief is that a society can exist where society is unfree (due to say a dictator) but individuals are free (a fair set of laws is in place that causes minimal harm/maximal good). This society is just as free if not more free than a democracy.
Therefore, democracy is not freedom.
> Having said that, you have a good point. I think you're talking about the majority's rule problem. Democracy suffers from that, where you can't individually choose, you need support from others. Now some people have more power to influence, so much so, that they might be indirectly ruling. This practically limits you're freedom to choose who dictates. And given a majority whose singly influenced by a powerful actor, which doesn't listen to you, a benevolent dictator which were to be more considering of your needs and desires, you might actually enjoy your life better and practically have more freedom.
Yes, I made exactly that argument in the other comment.
...
> My belief is that a society can exist where society is unfree (due to say a dictator) but individuals are free (a fair set of laws is in place that causes minimal harm/maximal good). This society is just as free if not more free than a democracy. Therefore, democracy is not freedom.
Well, I'd be okay with your distinction if you didn't contradict yourself here. Is the society free or not?
It appears to me like you're suggesting that a dictator who valued individual rights could create a society where the people in it have no recourse short of a forceful overrule to change they're rights, but who'se forced upon rights are vast and very generous. So you'd classify this as an unfree society, but one where freedoms are given to individuals.
But that would mean that dictatorship is not free, and thus not equal to freedom or a free society. While democracy is free, and thus equal to a free society. And that ones individual rights is almost a fully orthogonal concept. Which is what I personally believe. And why I think both are important to maintain. Individual and human rights must be fought for, and made law, protected against strongly. Yet society need also be free, and democracy is the best implementation of a free society we have.
Now sure, in a unrealistic scenario, where a dictator would give me almost idealistic individual rights, yet the neighboring democracy would give me subpar individual rights, I might prefer individual rights over it. But that example is just ridiculous. In practice, this has never happened, and that choice doesn't exist. But I take your point was that individual rights might trump a fare election system, and I think I'd agree with that. But again, I see that in practice, one is rarely there without the other, probably because most people who value individual rights, also value the freedom to choose who govern them.
Doesn't that depend on what you would have instead? You could have either a more concentrated power and a less concentrated power.
But in other ways, it is not. Too concentrated and you easily become technocratic or authoritarian, to unconcentrated and you lose the expression of civic will that emerges from elections that "build", so to speak, to national levels and allow amazing things to be done in democracies.
Personally, I'm a bigger fan of parliamentary democracies than presidential. I also believe a sore point for many towards democracy (particularly the idea that democracy is mob rule, or that votes are meaningless) is actually over "first past the post" voting rules. Luckily, we can make democracies better. It's purposely hard to change them, for good reason, but unlike other systems, they are flexible.
But, I think if you would rather have a system that is less democratic then that loss of democracy is a loss of freedom at the disproportionate expense of someone else. We call that undemocratic.
(I do not intend this comment as a value judgement one way or the other.)
Democracy is a form of freedom (freedom from government in which one is not a participant), and clearly a form of freedom important in the historical American concept of freedom (though, to be fair, it's not just Millenials for whom that had weakened, with the colonial America’s signature protest against norepresentative dictates being co-opted ss a symbol for political forces that are opposed to taxation rather than it’s imposition by nonrepresentative means.)
Like you want freedom from government, but you also don't want oppression by the majority.
Not saying that's necessarily the case, but could be.
e.g. Switzerland's infamous vote to ban minarets[1]. A lot of European countries seem to have a problem with religious freedom, despite being very democratic. Contrast with the undemocratic Singapore where people of different religions coexist relatively harmoniously.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_minaret_referendum,_2009
I think this line of thinking stems from the belief that democracy is the default state, and that it can withstand suppressing voices that disagrees with the dogma someone fights for.
- Freedom and democracy are different things, if some people think democracy isn't that important, it does not mean they do not value freedom.
- Maybe the millenials are "not open to diverse opinions", but maybe they're just sick of bullshit. "Free Speech" can be interpreted in different ways (and each country in the world does that).