Suppression of Free Expression Equals a Virus, Open Dialogue Serves as the Cure
In the ongoing discourse surrounding free speech and censorship, it's beneficial to recognize two contrasting ideologies. At one extreme lies the endorsement of free-flowing information and faith in the public's ability to discern truth. This approach, advocated by figures like Elon Musk and free speech absolutists, values the rough and tumble of the public square, believing that the truth will ultimately surface. Conversely, at the other end of the spectrum, is a regime ruled by censorship. Here, truth is disseminated and maintained by a small, self-anointed group of "experts."
In the free speech camp, the concern revolves around providing a stage to questionable characters and problematic ideas. On the other hand, in the censorship realm, the peril lies in granting excessive power to an unaccountable bureaucracy. Both approaches may harbor erroneous ideas, but the administration under censorship presents a more significant threat as it can enable harmful ideas, such as excessive lockdown measures and the pursuit of net-zero, to gain excessive traction.
Both the censorship and free speech models have historical roots. The former finds its origin in the philosophy of Plato who harbored reservations about the intellectual capacity of the majority to govern effectively. Conversely, Friedrich Hayek, in his seminal work "The Fatal Conceit," published in 1988, drew a line between socialism and free markets. Hayek asserted that the socialist model overlooks the reality that modern society functions based on the utilization of widely dispersed knowledge. His arguments can be applied to the sphere of free speech, as the notion of dispersed knowledge transfers well to this domain.
Hayek was particularly concerned about what he termed the "presumption of reason," a naïve reliance on axiomatic thinking, biased assumptions, and overreaching claims on weak foundations. He would likely have been critical of institutions like the OBR, and he strongly opposed what he called "scientism." Hayek traced the roots of this problem back to René Descartes, believing that intelligent people often overvalue their own intelligence and equate it with moral wisdom.
Throughout history, it has often been the working classes who have displayed the real wisdom when governing elites have strayed from the right path. Edmund Burke referred to this as the "wisdom of unlettered men." Over the past three decades, the educated elite, dominating government and bureaucracy positions, have demonstrated a long record of policy failures, from questionable China-WTO policies to ineffective lockdown strategies and ill-judged net-zero initiatives. These misguided policies have been enforced through the application of "scientism" and censorship, suppressing open debate in favor of a prescribed narrative.
In the current era, the practice of information control has been dubbed "the cathedral," where power is wielded by a tightly aligned coalition of politicians, journalists, academics, NGOs, and internet trolls. These entities use their authority to enforce a single narrative, focusing on narrative control rather than finding the truth. The proponents of censorship often include themselves in the group entrusted with decision-making, exhibiting a dangerous degree of arrogance that blinds them to their own biases. Censorship, Hayek observed, is indeed a deadly conceit.
In the realm of policy-and-legislation, one can draw parallels between the notion of dispersed knowledge promoted by Friedrich Hayek and the importance of diverse voices in free speech debates. This association stems from Hayek's argument that modern society functions based on the utilization of widely dispersed knowledge, a concept that transfers well to the sphere of free speech.
Moreover, the concept of 'scientism,' criticized by Hayek, can be noticed in the application of excessive lockdown measures and net-zero initiatives that have been enforced through censorship, suppressing open debate in favor of a prescribed narrative, a practice comparable to the cathedral model in contemporary times.
