| It is a cynical view of humanity, but one that seems most correct. If for example there is a deadly virus going around people will quickly restrict freedoms to prevent its spread. And even in the case they don't people that believe in freedom over precautions are evolutionary culled. So what happens when the issue is actually infohazards? One of the common assumptions the freedom group makes is with all the information they have, anyone else would come to the same set of decisions they have. Of course I see two problems with this. 1. The freedom group is quite often hypocritical. That is, freedom is defined however they think, and anything outside of how they thing is "Not true freedom™". Elon Musk is a common source of this kind of freedom. 2. The individuals personal definition of freedom is anecdotal (We'll call this set A). Set A individual thinks by telling another individual with set B ideas on freedom that set A will win somehow? (A + B = A). That when you put ideas out there, by some magic process the best ideas win and take over and everything is happily ever after. Of course where number 2 commonly fails is if an infohazard is more addictive than actual knowledge, and where the inoculation to said addiction takes a long time to reach herd immunity. And example would be that it's faster to destroy a nation due to ragebait faster than open democracy can adjust, hence democracy always fails in these conditions. Nice catch-22 situation. |