there’s no reason one can’t in principle have a theocracy with robust free speech rights.
I’ve yet to hear an argument for free speech that didn’t lean heavily on the risk that any particular policy or belief might be erroneous. My impression is that theocracy is defined as government based on the principal that there are some (divinely revealed?) facts for which there is no risk of error.
If we were sure (risk of error epsilon) of some set of facts and could unambiguously determine whether an assertion conflicted with those facts, why would we tolerate opposition?
Is that a problem of theocracy per se?
As Eliezer noted in the piece I cited, this is a problem of most political systems.
My impression is that theocracy is defined as government based on the principal that there are some (divinely revealed?) facts for which there is no risk of error.
So I was in the process of replying saying that there was potentially an issue here of definitions, but thinking about this more, other definitions I can think of seem about equivalent. So, operating under that definition, one could have a theocracy where for example people said “there’s no risk of error, but the deity in charge likes free will a lot, to the point where as long as they aren’t in the process of actively resisting the divine government, they are free to damn themselves” or something equivalent.
If that’s really the dogma of this (extremely hypothetical) religion, why is it important that the government be religiously based?
Traditionally, religions wanted a slice (or more) of political power to (a) avoid persecution and (b) implement their preferred policies. If (a) is not already resolved, this religion is in no position to argue about what the nation would look like if it were in charge.
I agree. The extreme length which I needed to go to construct a religion which even might have some chance of this is a strong argument that theocracies just won’t act this way. I suppose they could have a commandment in their holy text “run the government”, but this is clearly an extreme stretch.
I’ve yet to hear an argument for free speech that didn’t lean heavily on the risk that any particular policy or belief might be erroneous. My impression is that theocracy is defined as government based on the principal that there are some (divinely revealed?) facts for which there is no risk of error.
If we were sure (risk of error epsilon) of some set of facts and could unambiguously determine whether an assertion conflicted with those facts, why would we tolerate opposition?
As Eliezer noted in the piece I cited, this is a problem of most political systems.
So I was in the process of replying saying that there was potentially an issue here of definitions, but thinking about this more, other definitions I can think of seem about equivalent. So, operating under that definition, one could have a theocracy where for example people said “there’s no risk of error, but the deity in charge likes free will a lot, to the point where as long as they aren’t in the process of actively resisting the divine government, they are free to damn themselves” or something equivalent.
If that’s really the dogma of this (extremely hypothetical) religion, why is it important that the government be religiously based?
Traditionally, religions wanted a slice (or more) of political power to (a) avoid persecution and (b) implement their preferred policies. If (a) is not already resolved, this religion is in no position to argue about what the nation would look like if it were in charge.
I agree. The extreme length which I needed to go to construct a religion which even might have some chance of this is a strong argument that theocracies just won’t act this way. I suppose they could have a commandment in their holy text “run the government”, but this is clearly an extreme stretch.