> These are not the same sets of laws.

> 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 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

I'd have to agree with your debater. By definition, the dictator is given control over you. He exist as a dictator because you are not free. Now that's different say from an elected leader who year over year gets re-elected because everyone approves of what he's doing. You can't say he's a dictator, even though he might rule as one, but he's not, because the people are in control, even if he has the same power to enact the same things then your benevolent dictator and rules for just as long.

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.

> By definition, the dictator is given control over you. He exist as a dictator because you are not free. Now that's different say from an elected leader who year over year gets re-elected because everyone approves of what he's doing. You can't say he's a dictator, even though he might rule as one, but he's not, because the people are in control, even if he has the same power to enact the same things then your benevolent dictator and rules for just as long.

> 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.

> There are two different kinds of freedom here: The freedom for society to govern itself and the freedom of the individual.

...

> 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.