I will, however, suggest that you might do well to spend some time thinking about what your ideal society will be like after the principle that society (i.e. government) can dictate what people say, think and do to promote the social cause of the day becomes firmly entrenched. Do you really think your personal ideology will retain control of the government forever? What happens if a political group with views you oppose gets in power?
False dilemma. You’re also strawmanning my argument.
Freedom of religion is trivially equivalent to freedom of anti-epistemology. According to everything we know, it is extremely likely that only one set of beliefs can be true, and if so, there are clearly some that have more evidence supporting them. As such, “freedom to choose” which one set to believe is irrational and somewhat equivalent to trusting word-of-mouth rumours that fire does not harm you when you are naked.
Freedom of speech and freedom of association, in their current incarnations, are similarly problematic, though not as obviously so.
Absolute enforcement of these three freedoms is not required to avoid the failure modes of society that you enumerate, and I never mentioned that said ideal society would even remotely look like what’s contained withing your (apparently very tiny) hypothesis space of possible societies, let alone that my ideology would be the Rule of Law or that this society would even be composed of humans as we know them with all their flawed brains and flimsy squishy bits that give up and die way too fast.
In fairness, the claim that removing these freedoms is extremely dangerous isn’t the same as the claim that no conceivable society could function without them.
You may now continue with your regularly scheduled being right.
False dilemma. You’re also strawmanning my argument.
Freedom of religion is trivially equivalent to freedom of anti-epistemology. According to everything we know, it is extremely likely that only one set of beliefs can be true, and if so, there are clearly some that have more evidence supporting them. As such, “freedom to choose” which one set to believe is irrational and somewhat equivalent to trusting word-of-mouth rumours that fire does not harm you when you are naked.
Freedom of speech and freedom of association, in their current incarnations, are similarly problematic, though not as obviously so.
Absolute enforcement of these three freedoms is not required to avoid the failure modes of society that you enumerate, and I never mentioned that said ideal society would even remotely look like what’s contained withing your (apparently very tiny) hypothesis space of possible societies, let alone that my ideology would be the Rule of Law or that this society would even be composed of humans as we know them with all their flawed brains and flimsy squishy bits that give up and die way too fast.
In fairness, the claim that removing these freedoms is extremely dangerous isn’t the same as the claim that no conceivable society could function without them.
You may now continue with your regularly scheduled being right.