This is a good first exploration into the relationship between liberal democracy and longtermism. Since I care about both liberal democracy and the long-term future, I’m glad to see this.
Regarding what you term “liberalism”, a more specific term for this would be “civil and political rights” or “civil liberties.” You identify two ways in which civil liberties can lead to increased existential risk: infohazards and impeding effective policing. Yet existing liberal democracies already deal with these tradeoffs in a way that can be considered compatible with liberal rights:
Re: infohazards, liberal governments already protect their national security interests by prohibiting the disclosure of classified information to the public. They also protect trade secrets owned by companies against disclosure and espionage. These limitations are not generally considered infringements of freedom of speech and the press (even in the United States, which has a level of free speech protection), but sometimes the courts decide that certain unauthorized disclosures of information is protected speech (e.g. the Pentagon Papers in New York Times v. United States). Even with these restrictions on information sharing in limited contexts, political speech has an exceptionally high degree of constitutional protection in the United States.
Re: policing efficacy, liberal governments have ways to balance privacy rights with public safety in the case of surveillance. For example, in the United States, the government is allowed to do fairly invasive searches of people and property as long as they get a warrant describing what they are looking for and can justify the search to a judge. I talk about this here.
Given how liberal democracies already navigate these tradeoffs involving civil liberties, I think it’s more useful to talk about specific changes to civil liberties (e.g. making it illegal to distribute genetic code for harmful viruses) than blanket statements about “increasing or decreasing liberalism” as a whole. Having narrow limitations on what speech can be shared while strongly protecting freedom of expression in general, and taking a similar approach with privacy, would give us the benefits of these civil liberties while limiting them in situations where they could be harmful.
This is a good first exploration into the relationship between liberal democracy and longtermism. Since I care about both liberal democracy and the long-term future, I’m glad to see this.
Regarding what you term “liberalism”, a more specific term for this would be “civil and political rights” or “civil liberties.” You identify two ways in which civil liberties can lead to increased existential risk: infohazards and impeding effective policing. Yet existing liberal democracies already deal with these tradeoffs in a way that can be considered compatible with liberal rights:
Re: infohazards, liberal governments already protect their national security interests by prohibiting the disclosure of classified information to the public. They also protect trade secrets owned by companies against disclosure and espionage. These limitations are not generally considered infringements of freedom of speech and the press (even in the United States, which has a level of free speech protection), but sometimes the courts decide that certain unauthorized disclosures of information is protected speech (e.g. the Pentagon Papers in New York Times v. United States). Even with these restrictions on information sharing in limited contexts, political speech has an exceptionally high degree of constitutional protection in the United States.
Re: policing efficacy, liberal governments have ways to balance privacy rights with public safety in the case of surveillance. For example, in the United States, the government is allowed to do fairly invasive searches of people and property as long as they get a warrant describing what they are looking for and can justify the search to a judge. I talk about this here.
Given how liberal democracies already navigate these tradeoffs involving civil liberties, I think it’s more useful to talk about specific changes to civil liberties (e.g. making it illegal to distribute genetic code for harmful viruses) than blanket statements about “increasing or decreasing liberalism” as a whole. Having narrow limitations on what speech can be shared while strongly protecting freedom of expression in general, and taking a similar approach with privacy, would give us the benefits of these civil liberties while limiting them in situations where they could be harmful.