That was actually a super interesting, and somber, read.
It’s gets to, in part, the heart of free speech and government oversight. Even the opening C.S. Lewis quote is something worth applying to today’s (US) political parties. It’s difficult, for me, to consider the need to impose restrictions on the liberties of free people for the sake of a minor group of wrong doers.
Some topical issues I’m applying this perspective to are gun restrictions, Twitter, abortion, masks. I think we’re all quick to scream about what should be done to resolve the issue at the surface without taking a moment to consider the ramifications or the deeper causes driving the issue. Although, isn’t the deeper issue simply human nature? How do you solve that problem if not by imposing restrictions on the liberties of free people? Doesn’t a civil society require some level of restriction in order to foster trust and respect? Isn’t this why ancient civilizations created religion to begin with?
I mean, you have to admit that “free society” is an oxymoron.
That’s not what I read into this at all, but something far more sinister that I see happening in the world right now. Certain power players using “government oversight” as a disingenuous excuse to attack the means for regular people around the world to speak directly to one another without the filters that favor narratives that the power players prefer, and for regular people to coordinate with one another.
The Arab Spring and BLM protests scared some people and it’s showing.
I was thinking more about whether the government has the right to protect people’s liberties at the expense of others’. I firmly believe that your rights are restricted as soon as they impose upon the rights of others. But the idea of it, even the codification of it, does not wholly prevent people from harming or obstructing others. A “free” society can not function without restrictions or punishments. Nor does this seem to be enough protection of our liberties in this world of freely expressing ourselves in real time to millions.
Post 9/11, our freedoms were restricted to ensure our freedoms. Covid required us to get vaccinated and wear masks to ensure people’s freedom of not getting sick from others. The freedom to speak in public is restricted to prevent harm or hysteria. Isn’t the government imposing taxes on citizens a limitation of their freedoms?
Places like China take these restrictions to the extreme so their society is less free than that found in the United States. Scandinavian countries are generally listed as “happier” than the United States but I wonder government regulations in those countries compare to America’s.
Personally, I’ve been of the belief that more restriction of speech (on social media) is better for society. But that’s mostly because of, I’ll just be frank about it, Trump and MAGA and Fox news. You’re right though - policy-wise - what’s the difference between the Arab Spring, BLM, Charlottesville, Jan6? They’re all a bunch of people getting together to express themselves. Just because you’re a moron, should that restrict your freedoms? Should less intelligent people or people with mental disorders be restricted from owning a firearm to protect themselves even though it may increase the risk of them harming themselves or others? Is freedom of speech different?
So, what’s the answer? How does a planet of social creatures who are permanently and instantly connected with one another live and promote a free and fair society while limiting oversight that might prevent atrocities?
I don’t think government-ing is the answer. Nor do I think our brains and emotions are evolved enough. Which just makes me nihilistic about the whole “humanity” thing. We’re doomed.
That was actually a super interesting, and somber, read.
It’s gets to, in part, the heart of free speech and government oversight. Even the opening C.S. Lewis quote is something worth applying to today’s (US) political parties. It’s difficult, for me, to consider the need to impose restrictions on the liberties of free people for the sake of a minor group of wrong doers.
Some topical issues I’m applying this perspective to are gun restrictions, Twitter, abortion, masks. I think we’re all quick to scream about what should be done to resolve the issue at the surface without taking a moment to consider the ramifications or the deeper causes driving the issue. Although, isn’t the deeper issue simply human nature? How do you solve that problem if not by imposing restrictions on the liberties of free people? Doesn’t a civil society require some level of restriction in order to foster trust and respect? Isn’t this why ancient civilizations created religion to begin with?
I mean, you have to admit that “free society” is an oxymoron.
That’s not what I read into this at all, but something far more sinister that I see happening in the world right now. Certain power players using “government oversight” as a disingenuous excuse to attack the means for regular people around the world to speak directly to one another without the filters that favor narratives that the power players prefer, and for regular people to coordinate with one another.
The Arab Spring and BLM protests scared some people and it’s showing.
I was thinking more about whether the government has the right to protect people’s liberties at the expense of others’. I firmly believe that your rights are restricted as soon as they impose upon the rights of others. But the idea of it, even the codification of it, does not wholly prevent people from harming or obstructing others. A “free” society can not function without restrictions or punishments. Nor does this seem to be enough protection of our liberties in this world of freely expressing ourselves in real time to millions.
Post 9/11, our freedoms were restricted to ensure our freedoms. Covid required us to get vaccinated and wear masks to ensure people’s freedom of not getting sick from others. The freedom to speak in public is restricted to prevent harm or hysteria. Isn’t the government imposing taxes on citizens a limitation of their freedoms?
Places like China take these restrictions to the extreme so their society is less free than that found in the United States. Scandinavian countries are generally listed as “happier” than the United States but I wonder government regulations in those countries compare to America’s.
Personally, I’ve been of the belief that more restriction of speech (on social media) is better for society. But that’s mostly because of, I’ll just be frank about it, Trump and MAGA and Fox news. You’re right though - policy-wise - what’s the difference between the Arab Spring, BLM, Charlottesville, Jan6? They’re all a bunch of people getting together to express themselves. Just because you’re a moron, should that restrict your freedoms? Should less intelligent people or people with mental disorders be restricted from owning a firearm to protect themselves even though it may increase the risk of them harming themselves or others? Is freedom of speech different?
So, what’s the answer? How does a planet of social creatures who are permanently and instantly connected with one another live and promote a free and fair society while limiting oversight that might prevent atrocities?
I don’t think government-ing is the answer. Nor do I think our brains and emotions are evolved enough. Which just makes me nihilistic about the whole “humanity” thing. We’re doomed.