Thank you, David. Clinton’s proposal for a Ministry of Truth extends to speech (expression, thought, ideas) what is already the case in so many other areas of government activity, i.e., control by government officials posing as professional experts. He does us a service by taking it to a totalitarian extreme so that we can clearly see what’s wrong with the entire concept. The totalitarian extremes can go much further in the areas of sex, procreation, religious belief, diet, exercise, health, etc.
Clearly, Clinton thinks that there is a market failure in the area of ideas and thought. He does not believe in free speech. Errors in thought are very common. Their correction is accomplished quickly when the person acting upon erroneous thinking pays a price for behaving according to a false theory. In a political system in which power predominates and the legislators do not internalize the costs of their actions and in which it pays to gain power to legislate for one’s private interests, the effects of erroneous thinking are amplified. They affect more innocent people more deeply and last longer. Clinton clearly doesn’t understand the virtues of errors in thought as part and parcel of the movement toward truths. It is almost impossible to make headway without seeing error along the way. Error is part of creativity. It gives rise to truth by provoking counter-reaction and counter-thought. Clinton’s Ministry of Truth would quickly suppress truth and truth-seeking, expression, and thought. Its power would grow. It would become a focus for capture by those seeking gain from an official version. This shows that Clinton has a very naive assumption about government in his thinking. He is known to be intelligent according to standard tests, and that makes his proposal all the more stunning. It shows how far off that people with high IQs can get. It shows that the presumption that professionals know better than the free market is still going strong in the minds of influential Americans. Is there a term for rule by experts? Eric Hoffer understood it as the tyranny of experts.
