Maybe, but the argument is that mere public existence of an idea effectively promotes correct ideas and demotes incorrect ideas.
That is absolutely not in evidence.
That is absolutely not in evidence.
For example, the idea of a nobility class.
If your claim is that we shouldn't expect this to continue in the future, that's a whole new claim that you need to support.
I mean, even the example used ("the noble class") is preposterous on face because:
1. The Russian Revolution? Germany 1849? Even the American Revolution? None of these are about ideas, or "shining the light on ignorance" -- they're about putting the nobility up against the wall. If there's some kind of teleology at play here, it's not that we thought about it in the marketplace of ideas long enough and decided to do away with the concept.
2. Nobility still exists! At best, this just means we live in a secular society, where we no longer believe the Word of God justifies massive inequality.
It was one-line discussion-board summation of what is widely accepted by historians (as you said, "trivially true"), but if you'd like to share an explanation of how the spread of ideas leading to the revolutions of Europe could have happened without an innovation that had the same effect as the printing press did, I'd be intrigued to to read it.
> patently absurd
So far, three of your replies in this thread alone have contained the word "absurd".
They probably all break the HN guidelines ("Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation", and "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says").
But more importantly, you're too busy sneering at other people's comments to make any positive assertion of your own.
So what is it you actually want to persuade us of, about the appropriate levels of constraints on speech in the modern world?
History is more complicated than a single invention! It's needlessly reductive.
I could also say: "how could have the revolutions of Europe happened without mercantile capitalism challenging the economic structures of feudalism?" But that's just imposing a post-hoc narrative on history that happens to fit my existing views.
> So what is it you actually want to persuade us of, about the appropriate levels of constraints on speech in the modern world.
My sole reason for participating in this thread is to firmly reject idealism and the teleological view of history. Ideas aren't magic. Technology isn't either.
(P.S. it's kind of hilarious that you're invoking HN rules regarding my speech in the same breath as you are defending the merits of free speech.)
Yes, of course, I never claimed otherwise. But some concepts are more fundamental and influential than others, and the flow of information is more fundamental and influential than most.
> My sole reason for participating in this thread is to firmly reject idealism and the teleological view of history. Ideas aren't magic. Technology isn't either.
If that's all you're trying to say, then, OK, thanks for pointing that out.
> it's kind of hilarious that you're invoking HN rules regarding my speech in the same breath as you are defending the merits of free speech
Fine, have your free point :)
But dismissing everyone else's comments as "absurd", "preposterous", "hilarious" etc whilst not making any effort to construct a solid assertion about the main topic is just a waste of everyone's time.
Only as formality in some countries. In America, there are some people who call the Kennedys "America's aristocracy", call JFK's white house "Camelot", and make references to members of the Kennedy family being "entitled" to office, but there's no legal basis for it.
Apartheid in South Africa is also gone.
America literally has a nobility class right now. The UK isn't far off.
Literally nope. For example, there is no law that says the word of one group of people is worth more in court than another group. There are no laws saying only certain people can be in power based on their ancestors. There is no law enshrining divine right.
And yet.
> There are no laws saying only certain people can be in power based on their ancestors.
And yet. Just because there are no explicit written laws does not mean this doesn't happen every single day in multiple ways.
[1] e.g an extremely unpopular incumbent against a popular challenger with excellent ground game.
This is somewhat true of course (though Obama is a notable recent exception).
Indeed it's pretty true in most countries and systems of government (though my closest experience is here in Australia, where all our prime ministers going back almost 40 years, and most others in our ~120 year history, have come from modest origins).
But the topic at hand is freedom of speech/expression.
Whose interests are likely to be served, ultimately, by constraints on speech/expression?
Those already holding power, or those seeking to reform/subvert the system?
Obama - commoner
Clinton - commoner
Reagan - commoner
Carter - commoner
Ford - commoner
Nixon - commoner
Truman - commoner
Sounds like routinely to me.
The mere public existence of an idea (like in some dusty old book that nobody reads) is not sufficient to change majority option, no.