Even if the output of free speech is just a lie from the other-side, it enables more rapid error correction in similar ways to the messy market creates increased wealth.
Free Speech is great, and recent events have provided a classic demonstration.
Free speech on the internet (and the fight to preserve it) has allowed facts to come to light which were previously hidden by gatekeepers. Race and IQ is an important example.
(btw, I wish the links to other blog posts of yours in the migrated econlib posts, pointed to the substack version of the article, not econlib, but hwhatever...)
First of all, could you please give real-world examples of the side being censored being liars as much as the side doing the censoring?
I'm trying to think through examples of censorship that I know of to see if this is true:
I'll start with the Freedom Convoy and then add more in replies to this comment since comment size is limited on Substack:
1. The Freedom Convoy. The stated aim was to reinstate exemptions from vaccine mandates for Canadian truckers returning from the US.
The Canadian government's reason for the vaccine mandates were twofold: 1. Vaccines save lives (true). 2. Unvaccinated truckers returning from the US present a significantly greater risk for infecting other Canadians with CoVid than the average Canadian. (Lie! Especially for the Omnicron wave where vaccines still reduced the death rate amongst those later infected with Covid but had little to no effect on the infection rate.)
Lies on the part of at least some of the protestors: The WEF is secretly controlling Canada, the vaccines contain microchips allowing "them" to track you, vaccines kill, etc. Particularly damming: Canada Unity (a group loosely affiliated with the Freedom convoy - they let em use their website) wrote a weird MOU trying to enter into a binding agreement with the unelected Senate and Governor General (but not the PM or House of Commons) to instruct all levels of government to end all covid-related mandates and refund all covid-related fines. This was of dubious constitutionality. But the pretty little liars on the government side blew it out of proportion to claim that the freedom convoy was attempting a coup. The Freedom Convoy leadership later distanced themselves from the MOU.
In this case, I think it's hard to say whether the Freedom Convoy were a bunch of "pretty little liars". I think some of them sincerely believed that the vaccines were deadly and the conspiracy theories about the WEF and such. So they're not liars. Perhaps there were some Most of them would have probably gone home, if the government just re-instated the vaccine mandate exemption for truckers. Nearly all would have gone home if the Federal government would have ended all federal vaccine mandates. i.e. Allow anybody, or at least any Canadian, to enter Canada without having to quarantine, whether or not they were vaccinated against Covid-19. So hwhether or not there were pretty little liars who were lying or exaggerating to drum up support for their cause, most of them would not have chosen these more crazy claims as their "hill to die on". I can't imagine them being like: "No! I'm gonna keep my truck parked in the middle of the street until Trudeau makes a public statement admitting that Klaus Schwab is his boss and that the covid vaccines are gonna kill you!"
There were further pretty little lies used by the government in order to suppress the freedom convoy: namely that the illegal elements of the protest (such as illegal parking in the middle of the street) could not be dealt with through regular means (such as ticketing and towing their trucks), that law enforcement asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act (all levels of law Enforcement denied this) and that the Emergencies Act did not infringe on Canadians' civil liberties (it banned all protests in downtown Ottawa for several days!) and that somehow all measures they took were necessary. (They removed pedestrian protestors from a pedestrian mall, by force! They had trucks that would threaten to run over pedestrians. Was this necessary to end the illegal parking and loud honking?)
All in all, whilst a few fringe Freedom Convoy participants said some pretty little lies, I think the government was the bigger liar, in this case.
These seem pretty reasonable requests for moderate reforms. They don't seem like grandiose statements like: “The [CCP] has destroyed our country – but this will be the greatest country on earth if we gain power.”
They don't sound like they were calling for an end to the CCP. They don't even sound like they were calling for democracy. Point 1 sorta sounds like that but Hu Yaobang didn't clearly call for democracy. Especially not in a Western sense. He just tacitly supported a few Democracy Wall protestors in the 70s and invited them to his house for further dialogue. He also "encouraged intellectuals to raise controversial subjects in the media, including democracy, human rights, and the possibility of introducing legal limits to the Communist Party's influence within the Chinese government."
The protestors were mostly peaceful at first but did respond to violence with violence. They didn't pretend to continue to be non-violent: On the evening of June 3, after thousands of PLA troops arrived on the Square, "protesters made their own broadcasts across various university campuses in Beijing to call for students and citizens to arm themselves and assemble at intersections and the Square." Clearly, they weren't pretending to still be a non-violent protest. (If they did, that would be a lie, but they didn't.)
Now, how about the government's lies... Oh boy!
"First of all, I should like to express my deep grief over the officers and men of the People’s Liberation Army, the People’s Armed Police Force and the Public Security Police who have died heroically in this struggle." Heroically? LIE!
"[V]eteran comrades ... understand the possible consequences of different ways of dealing with them. They support the resolute action taken against the rebellion." LIE! Zhao Ziyang didn't. "Some comrades do not understand that action for the time being, but they will come to understand it and support the decision of the central authorities." Nope. Many still do not understand or support it. They're just too scared to speak up.
"The handful of bad people had two basic slogans: overthrow the Communist Party and demolish the socialist system. Their goal was to establish a bourgeois republic, an out-and-out vassal of the West. Naturally, we accepted the people’s demand for a fight against corruption. We even had to accept as well-intentioned the so-called anti-corruption slogans of the bad individuals. Of course, these slogans were simply pretexts, and their ultimate aim was to overthrow the Communist Party and demolish the socialist system." Perhaps there were a few bad Apples who were just egging on the protestors but would stop at nothing short less than overthrowing the Communist Party. But I doubt it. They could have proved that by giving in to all the demands and showing that the protestors didn't stop and wouldn't stop. But they didn't.
"The important thing is that we must never turn China back into a country that keeps its doors closed. A closed-door policy would be greatly to our disadvantage; we would not even have quick access to information. People say that information is important, right? It certainly is." LIES! They did close the door to free speech and divergent opinions. Some of the demands of the protestors were for greater transparency. If access to information is important, hwhy didn't they grant those demands?
We will never really know if the protestors were liars. Perhaps, if the government granted all their demands, they would have still kept on protesting. We will never know. Because the government did not grant their demands. They fucking shot em instead!
The Chinese government were the bigger liars in this case. Especially Deng Xiaoping. hWhat a POS!
So, I am generally not convinced that the side being censored by a censorious government are Pretty Liars just as bad as the censorious government they are opposing. You have failed to convince me on this one, sir. Please bring real-world examples next time, to bolster your point.
1. One country, two systems until at least 2047. Ha!
2. 2007 NPCSC decision on Universal suffrage: The Chief Executive and LegCo would be elected by Universal Suffrage by 2017. Lie!
Protestor lies:
1. Maybe that there is no need for an internal extradition law within Chinese territory and any such law would be unreasonable. Lie. A Hong-Kong dude got away with MURDERING his girlfriend in Taiwan. hWhat if a Hong Konger murders someone on the mainland? Should he not face justice for his crime?
2. It's JUST about the extradition law. Lie, Carrie Lam withdrew the bill. Protests continued. It was never JUST about the extradition law. It was also about free speech, clemency to protestors, an official inquiry and universal suffrage.
I would say: The government's lies are way more egregious here!
Abortion bubble zones: (I know something aboot this!)
Government true statements:
1. Sometimes people attack abortion providers. True. Although this is rare especially in Canada.
Government lies:
1. Bubble zones will protect abortion providers and patients. Lie! If someone is determined to attack an abortion provider or patient, they are already determined to break the law. One more law for them to break, in the process, won't stop them.
2. Bubble zones balance rights "proportionately". Lie! Yes, they infringe on the rights of pro-lifers to try to dissuade women from getting abortions and dissuade abortion providers from doing them. They are at least 50 METRES in Ontario. That's METRES, not feet! Too far to be seen or heard by abortion providers or patients. Since they are not effective at stopping attacks on abortion providers at all, this is completely disproprtionate.
Pro-lifer truths:
1. The life of a new human organism begins at conception.
2. Killing innocent humans is wrong.
Pro-lifer lies or exaggerations:
1. Abortion causes breast cancer. Mostly a lie. There is perhaps a correlation between late term abortion and breast cancer. But late term abortions are rare.
2. Women regret their abortions: Mostly a lie. Most women are fine with it and do not regret it. The ones who do regret their abortions usually struggled with the decision beforehand. For example, they felt abortion is wrong, deep down inside, but still went through with it despite all that, because they felt they had "no choice".
3. Abortion is never necessary to save the mother's life. Mostly a lie. But it's really a semantic game. There are procedures used to save the mother's life that result in the death of the embryo or fetus. Like salpingectomy for an ectopic pregnancy or early delivery for pre-eclampsia. But pro-lifers don't call these "abortions". But what is an early-delivery for a pre-viable fetus or embryo? An abortion. Likewise, if abortion was banned but people were getting around the ban by doing procedures intended to end the pregnancy which happen to result in ending the life of the embryo, such as induced early delivery of a pre-viable embryo, pro-lifers would want those procedures banned too! Even if they're not called abortions.
Honestly, since most of the women going to abortion clinics are getting elective first term abortions, pro-lifer lies/exaggerations 1 and 3 mostly don't apply.
So, the government lies are definitely more egregious than the protestor lies, in this case.
1. The election was rigged: True. It's pretty much impossible to ensure that ANY US Federal election is free of election fraud like stuffed ballots and the like.
2. President Trump was the real winner: Lie. He lost by a lot, in many different states. Some of the "rigging" was surely in his favour. Even in impossibly "perfect" election, he would have still lost. Trump lost the 2020 election. Fair and square.
Statements of the government and the "legacy" media:
1. Trump lost, fair and square: True. Face it: he lost.
2. Trump ordered the protestors to storm the hwhite house: Lie. He asked them to peacefully protest. He asked them to peacefully march over to the capitol building and "peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard. He never asked them to even enter the capitol building.
3. The entry into the capitol was building was illegal: Mostly True. Citizens can usually enter the capital building to watch proceedings, but they must be orderly, follow a certain protocol, be subject to security screening, be quiet, etc. The protestors did not do this. At least the protestors at the front who were pushing through security guards, breaking windows, etc. Although, as I understand it, by the time the last protestors were entering, security was just letting them in (as I understand it. I wasn't there.) so for them, I think you can make a pretty strong case that they entered legally.
4. The entry into the capitol was violent: Mostly a lie. Some protestors did push their way in but none of them shot anybody. The fact that some of them were armed is irrelevant. Some of the security/cops did shoot some of the protestors though.
5. The entry into the capitol building was an "insurrection": Lie! Oh please! An insurrection is a violent uprising against an authority or government. And they were non-violent (at least, for the most part). This was just a protest, inside the legislature, trying to pressure legislatures to vote a particular way not unlike the January 21, 2025 protestors who interrupted a Legislative Committee meeting at the Minnesota State Capitol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP8Ij1T22YM hWhat? Never heard of this? Yea, that's cause it's a nothingburger. Just like the Jan 6, 2020 "insurrection".
Honestly, the lies on both sides seem pretty egregious, in this case. Dr Caplan, I believe your claiming that the protestors lie just as much, not more than the other side trynna silence them. In this case, I think you're right. Point for you.
Many people are pathologically incapable of facing reality, let alone the truth about their lives. This is the result of their natural inclination based on personality traits and in some cases on serious mental disorders. This all supports Caplan’s thesis that pretty lies are psychologically appealing compared to ugly truths.
The idea that free speech leads directly to truth is, itself, something of a pretty ... falsehood.
A conceit.
But censorship very definitely suppresses truth. Whatever it is.
Even if the output of free speech is just a lie from the other-side, it enables more rapid error correction in similar ways to the messy market creates increased wealth.
Free Speech is great, and recent events have provided a classic demonstration.
Free speech on the internet (and the fight to preserve it) has allowed facts to come to light which were previously hidden by gatekeepers. Race and IQ is an important example.
Just look at America compared to the UK.
I have a lot to say aboot this. I have been meaning to comment but have been procrastinating.
I will also comment on your previous blog post that you referenced in this one: https://www.betonit.ai/p/how_to_believehtml
(btw, I wish the links to other blog posts of yours in the migrated econlib posts, pointed to the substack version of the article, not econlib, but hwhatever...)
First of all, could you please give real-world examples of the side being censored being liars as much as the side doing the censoring?
I'm trying to think through examples of censorship that I know of to see if this is true:
I'll start with the Freedom Convoy and then add more in replies to this comment since comment size is limited on Substack:
1. The Freedom Convoy. The stated aim was to reinstate exemptions from vaccine mandates for Canadian truckers returning from the US.
The Canadian government's reason for the vaccine mandates were twofold: 1. Vaccines save lives (true). 2. Unvaccinated truckers returning from the US present a significantly greater risk for infecting other Canadians with CoVid than the average Canadian. (Lie! Especially for the Omnicron wave where vaccines still reduced the death rate amongst those later infected with Covid but had little to no effect on the infection rate.)
Lies on the part of at least some of the protestors: The WEF is secretly controlling Canada, the vaccines contain microchips allowing "them" to track you, vaccines kill, etc. Particularly damming: Canada Unity (a group loosely affiliated with the Freedom convoy - they let em use their website) wrote a weird MOU trying to enter into a binding agreement with the unelected Senate and Governor General (but not the PM or House of Commons) to instruct all levels of government to end all covid-related mandates and refund all covid-related fines. This was of dubious constitutionality. But the pretty little liars on the government side blew it out of proportion to claim that the freedom convoy was attempting a coup. The Freedom Convoy leadership later distanced themselves from the MOU.
In this case, I think it's hard to say whether the Freedom Convoy were a bunch of "pretty little liars". I think some of them sincerely believed that the vaccines were deadly and the conspiracy theories about the WEF and such. So they're not liars. Perhaps there were some Most of them would have probably gone home, if the government just re-instated the vaccine mandate exemption for truckers. Nearly all would have gone home if the Federal government would have ended all federal vaccine mandates. i.e. Allow anybody, or at least any Canadian, to enter Canada without having to quarantine, whether or not they were vaccinated against Covid-19. So hwhether or not there were pretty little liars who were lying or exaggerating to drum up support for their cause, most of them would not have chosen these more crazy claims as their "hill to die on". I can't imagine them being like: "No! I'm gonna keep my truck parked in the middle of the street until Trudeau makes a public statement admitting that Klaus Schwab is his boss and that the covid vaccines are gonna kill you!"
There were further pretty little lies used by the government in order to suppress the freedom convoy: namely that the illegal elements of the protest (such as illegal parking in the middle of the street) could not be dealt with through regular means (such as ticketing and towing their trucks), that law enforcement asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act (all levels of law Enforcement denied this) and that the Emergencies Act did not infringe on Canadians' civil liberties (it banned all protests in downtown Ottawa for several days!) and that somehow all measures they took were necessary. (They removed pedestrian protestors from a pedestrian mall, by force! They had trucks that would threaten to run over pedestrians. Was this necessary to end the illegal parking and loud honking?)
All in all, whilst a few fringe Freedom Convoy participants said some pretty little lies, I think the government was the bigger liar, in this case.
5. The Tiananmen Square Massacre (I was a very young child at the time, so I am kinda hoping Wikipedia is accurate aboot this one!)
Stated demands of the protestors:
"1. Affirm Hu Yaobang's views on democracy and freedom as correct.
2. Admit that the campaigns against spiritual pollution and bourgeois liberalisation had been wrong.
3. Publish information on the income of state leaders and their family members.
4. Allow privately run newspapers and stop press censorship.
5. Increase funding for education and raise intellectuals' pay.
6. End restrictions on demonstrations in Beijing.
7. Provide objective coverage of students in official media."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre
These seem pretty reasonable requests for moderate reforms. They don't seem like grandiose statements like: “The [CCP] has destroyed our country – but this will be the greatest country on earth if we gain power.”
They don't sound like they were calling for an end to the CCP. They don't even sound like they were calling for democracy. Point 1 sorta sounds like that but Hu Yaobang didn't clearly call for democracy. Especially not in a Western sense. He just tacitly supported a few Democracy Wall protestors in the 70s and invited them to his house for further dialogue. He also "encouraged intellectuals to raise controversial subjects in the media, including democracy, human rights, and the possibility of introducing legal limits to the Communist Party's influence within the Chinese government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Yaobang
The protestors were mostly peaceful at first but did respond to violence with violence. They didn't pretend to continue to be non-violent: On the evening of June 3, after thousands of PLA troops arrived on the Square, "protesters made their own broadcasts across various university campuses in Beijing to call for students and citizens to arm themselves and assemble at intersections and the Square." Clearly, they weren't pretending to still be a non-violent protest. (If they did, that would be a lie, but they didn't.)
Now, how about the government's lies... Oh boy!
"First of all, I should like to express my deep grief over the officers and men of the People’s Liberation Army, the People’s Armed Police Force and the Public Security Police who have died heroically in this struggle." Heroically? LIE!
"[V]eteran comrades ... understand the possible consequences of different ways of dealing with them. They support the resolute action taken against the rebellion." LIE! Zhao Ziyang didn't. "Some comrades do not understand that action for the time being, but they will come to understand it and support the decision of the central authorities." Nope. Many still do not understand or support it. They're just too scared to speak up.
"The handful of bad people had two basic slogans: overthrow the Communist Party and demolish the socialist system. Their goal was to establish a bourgeois republic, an out-and-out vassal of the West. Naturally, we accepted the people’s demand for a fight against corruption. We even had to accept as well-intentioned the so-called anti-corruption slogans of the bad individuals. Of course, these slogans were simply pretexts, and their ultimate aim was to overthrow the Communist Party and demolish the socialist system." Perhaps there were a few bad Apples who were just egging on the protestors but would stop at nothing short less than overthrowing the Communist Party. But I doubt it. They could have proved that by giving in to all the demands and showing that the protestors didn't stop and wouldn't stop. But they didn't.
"The important thing is that we must never turn China back into a country that keeps its doors closed. A closed-door policy would be greatly to our disadvantage; we would not even have quick access to information. People say that information is important, right? It certainly is." LIES! They did close the door to free speech and divergent opinions. Some of the demands of the protestors were for greater transparency. If access to information is important, hwhy didn't they grant those demands?
Honestly, the hwhole speech is full of lies: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1989/5.htm
We will never really know if the protestors were liars. Perhaps, if the government granted all their demands, they would have still kept on protesting. We will never know. Because the government did not grant their demands. They fucking shot em instead!
The Chinese government were the bigger liars in this case. Especially Deng Xiaoping. hWhat a POS!
So, I am generally not convinced that the side being censored by a censorious government are Pretty Liars just as bad as the censorious government they are opposing. You have failed to convince me on this one, sir. Please bring real-world examples next time, to bolster your point.
Now, let's venture across the ocean. To China!
4. 2019-2020 Hong Kong Protests:
Government lies:
1. One country, two systems until at least 2047. Ha!
2. 2007 NPCSC decision on Universal suffrage: The Chief Executive and LegCo would be elected by Universal Suffrage by 2017. Lie!
Protestor lies:
1. Maybe that there is no need for an internal extradition law within Chinese territory and any such law would be unreasonable. Lie. A Hong-Kong dude got away with MURDERING his girlfriend in Taiwan. hWhat if a Hong Konger murders someone on the mainland? Should he not face justice for his crime?
2. It's JUST about the extradition law. Lie, Carrie Lam withdrew the bill. Protests continued. It was never JUST about the extradition law. It was also about free speech, clemency to protestors, an official inquiry and universal suffrage.
I would say: The government's lies are way more egregious here!
Abortion bubble zones: (I know something aboot this!)
Government true statements:
1. Sometimes people attack abortion providers. True. Although this is rare especially in Canada.
Government lies:
1. Bubble zones will protect abortion providers and patients. Lie! If someone is determined to attack an abortion provider or patient, they are already determined to break the law. One more law for them to break, in the process, won't stop them.
2. Bubble zones balance rights "proportionately". Lie! Yes, they infringe on the rights of pro-lifers to try to dissuade women from getting abortions and dissuade abortion providers from doing them. They are at least 50 METRES in Ontario. That's METRES, not feet! Too far to be seen or heard by abortion providers or patients. Since they are not effective at stopping attacks on abortion providers at all, this is completely disproprtionate.
Pro-lifer truths:
1. The life of a new human organism begins at conception.
2. Killing innocent humans is wrong.
Pro-lifer lies or exaggerations:
1. Abortion causes breast cancer. Mostly a lie. There is perhaps a correlation between late term abortion and breast cancer. But late term abortions are rare.
2. Women regret their abortions: Mostly a lie. Most women are fine with it and do not regret it. The ones who do regret their abortions usually struggled with the decision beforehand. For example, they felt abortion is wrong, deep down inside, but still went through with it despite all that, because they felt they had "no choice".
3. Abortion is never necessary to save the mother's life. Mostly a lie. But it's really a semantic game. There are procedures used to save the mother's life that result in the death of the embryo or fetus. Like salpingectomy for an ectopic pregnancy or early delivery for pre-eclampsia. But pro-lifers don't call these "abortions". But what is an early-delivery for a pre-viable fetus or embryo? An abortion. Likewise, if abortion was banned but people were getting around the ban by doing procedures intended to end the pregnancy which happen to result in ending the life of the embryo, such as induced early delivery of a pre-viable embryo, pro-lifers would want those procedures banned too! Even if they're not called abortions.
Honestly, since most of the women going to abortion clinics are getting elective first term abortions, pro-lifer lies/exaggerations 1 and 3 mostly don't apply.
So, the government lies are definitely more egregious than the protestor lies, in this case.
2. Jan 6th:
Statements of the protestors:
1. The election was rigged: True. It's pretty much impossible to ensure that ANY US Federal election is free of election fraud like stuffed ballots and the like.
2. President Trump was the real winner: Lie. He lost by a lot, in many different states. Some of the "rigging" was surely in his favour. Even in impossibly "perfect" election, he would have still lost. Trump lost the 2020 election. Fair and square.
Statements of the government and the "legacy" media:
1. Trump lost, fair and square: True. Face it: he lost.
2. Trump ordered the protestors to storm the hwhite house: Lie. He asked them to peacefully protest. He asked them to peacefully march over to the capitol building and "peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard. He never asked them to even enter the capitol building.
3. The entry into the capitol was building was illegal: Mostly True. Citizens can usually enter the capital building to watch proceedings, but they must be orderly, follow a certain protocol, be subject to security screening, be quiet, etc. The protestors did not do this. At least the protestors at the front who were pushing through security guards, breaking windows, etc. Although, as I understand it, by the time the last protestors were entering, security was just letting them in (as I understand it. I wasn't there.) so for them, I think you can make a pretty strong case that they entered legally.
4. The entry into the capitol was violent: Mostly a lie. Some protestors did push their way in but none of them shot anybody. The fact that some of them were armed is irrelevant. Some of the security/cops did shoot some of the protestors though.
5. The entry into the capitol building was an "insurrection": Lie! Oh please! An insurrection is a violent uprising against an authority or government. And they were non-violent (at least, for the most part). This was just a protest, inside the legislature, trying to pressure legislatures to vote a particular way not unlike the January 21, 2025 protestors who interrupted a Legislative Committee meeting at the Minnesota State Capitol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP8Ij1T22YM hWhat? Never heard of this? Yea, that's cause it's a nothingburger. Just like the Jan 6, 2020 "insurrection".
Honestly, the lies on both sides seem pretty egregious, in this case. Dr Caplan, I believe your claiming that the protestors lie just as much, not more than the other side trynna silence them. In this case, I think you're right. Point for you.
Even more relevant now, in the days of Trump II.
Many people are pathologically incapable of facing reality, let alone the truth about their lives. This is the result of their natural inclination based on personality traits and in some cases on serious mental disorders. This all supports Caplan’s thesis that pretty lies are psychologically appealing compared to ugly truths.
YES!!!