Either the restrictive law itself, or a close equivalent, yes. But the reason is that tyranny is an attractor state in many systems.
Revolutions, civil wars and other strong disruption such can reset a tyrannical state into a more free state, but that seems to happen less recently due to globalism, and there’s a sort of meta-progress of away from freedom which is not reset, so the baseline of privacy and freedom is approximately the inverse of technological achievement.
Now, you might want proof of this, or stronger arguments than what I have. In the hard sciences, which society regards as the most difficult intellectual work, proofs are possible. But every day life is actually much more complicated than the hard sciences are, and too many things depend on eachother for us to be able to isolate anything as a cause. Some people, myself included, are good with more complex systems, and we’re no worse predictors than those who specialize in just one thing and get renown for that. Academia is rather hostile to those who don’t commit the McNamara fallacy, as them commiting the fallacy makes them unsympathetic towards people who make claims which are difficult to verify. Nassim Taleb has pretty good takes on complex systems which I recommend
I think if you actually dig into the facts here you’ll see that while there may be a gradual increase in restrictive laws over long periods of time the majority of restrictive measures introduced—just like the majority of nearly all measures introduced—fail. This is particularly true at the Federal level, while at the state and local level there’s a lot of variation from place to place.
Deflecting demands for proof, particularly as that term is understood in the “hard” sciences, is not unreasonable. Deflecting demands for stronger arguments is just intellectual laziness.
The period is not so long. It’s enough that if you were to implement 10 years of change in a single day, you’d have mass protests or a civil war on your hand. Culturally, the world is currently changing very fast, since we can only compare to the past, which changed much more slowly.
A gradual decrease in freedom over time is a really bad sign, for the same reason that a gradual increase in temperature, and a gradual decrease in birth rates are really bad signs. The media attacks the social status of those who don’t panic enough about global warming, and it attacks the social status of those who panic too much about privacy, and then people compete in showing how good and proper they are (by signaling that they do not belong to the group which is being criticized). It’s a waste of time to argue against common opinion, even when one is correct and in possession of good arguments. Disagreements about facts play out as if they’re power and value conflicts
It sounds like you’re arguing that every restrictive law that’s ever attempted is eventually enacted. Is that really your claim?
Either the restrictive law itself, or a close equivalent, yes. But the reason is that tyranny is an attractor state in many systems.
Revolutions, civil wars and other strong disruption such can reset a tyrannical state into a more free state, but that seems to happen less recently due to globalism, and there’s a sort of meta-progress of away from freedom which is not reset, so the baseline of privacy and freedom is approximately the inverse of technological achievement.
Now, you might want proof of this, or stronger arguments than what I have. In the hard sciences, which society regards as the most difficult intellectual work, proofs are possible. But every day life is actually much more complicated than the hard sciences are, and too many things depend on eachother for us to be able to isolate anything as a cause. Some people, myself included, are good with more complex systems, and we’re no worse predictors than those who specialize in just one thing and get renown for that. Academia is rather hostile to those who don’t commit the McNamara fallacy, as them commiting the fallacy makes them unsympathetic towards people who make claims which are difficult to verify. Nassim Taleb has pretty good takes on complex systems which I recommend
I think if you actually dig into the facts here you’ll see that while there may be a gradual increase in restrictive laws over long periods of time the majority of restrictive measures introduced—just like the majority of nearly all measures introduced—fail. This is particularly true at the Federal level, while at the state and local level there’s a lot of variation from place to place.
Deflecting demands for proof, particularly as that term is understood in the “hard” sciences, is not unreasonable. Deflecting demands for stronger arguments is just intellectual laziness.
The period is not so long. It’s enough that if you were to implement 10 years of change in a single day, you’d have mass protests or a civil war on your hand. Culturally, the world is currently changing very fast, since we can only compare to the past, which changed much more slowly.
A gradual decrease in freedom over time is a really bad sign, for the same reason that a gradual increase in temperature, and a gradual decrease in birth rates are really bad signs. The media attacks the social status of those who don’t panic enough about global warming, and it attacks the social status of those who panic too much about privacy, and then people compete in showing how good and proper they are (by signaling that they do not belong to the group which is being criticized). It’s a waste of time to argue against common opinion, even when one is correct and in possession of good arguments. Disagreements about facts play out as if they’re power and value conflicts