Both ideological extremes, left unchecked, concentrate power and lead to authoritarianism. Unfettered capitalism creates a corporate 'king' who controls all resources, while socialism creates a state dictator. Both systems ultimately subvert individual freedom without proper checks.

Top-down mandates from authorities have a history of being flawed, from the food pyramid to the FDA's stance on opioids. True progress emerges not from command-and-control edicts but from a decentralized system that allows for thousands of experiments. Protecting the freedom for most to fail is what allows a few breakthrough ideas to succeed and benefit everyone.

The ultimate test of free speech is allowing potentially harmful ideas to circulate. While this may lead to negative consequences, it is preferable to the alternative. The 20th century saw 200 million people killed by their own governments, demonstrating that the tyranny required to enforce narrative control is a far greater danger.

The debate over government's size can be framed using political philosophy. 'Negative freedom' is freedom *from* state interference (e.g., censorship). 'Positive freedom' is the capability to achieve one's potential, requiring state support for basics like education and health to enable true flourishing.

Political ideologies like socialism consistently fail because they are not stress-tested against human nature. People inherently resist ceding their individual will and autonomy, even to a system promising a perfect outcome, leading to coercion.

Evaluate political ideologies based on their historical potential for large-scale harm ("amplitude"), not just a leader's current negative actions. A socialist path, historically leading to mass death, may pose a greater long-term threat than a leader's immediate, but less catastrophic, authoritarian tendencies.

Socialism's top-down control ignores market incentives, leading to predictable failure (e.g., rent control causing building decay). When people protest these failures, proponents who believe they "know better" must resort to coercion and violence to silence dissent and maintain power, rather than admit their model is flawed.

Command economies inevitably rely on force. In a free society, disagreement is resolved through persuasion. In an authoritarian system where directives are absolute, dissent is ultimately met with force. Adopting a top-down economic model means accepting state-sanctioned violence as a necessary tool.

Systems built on violence and coercion, such as authoritarian rule or forced taxation, are fundamentally unstable. They incentivize participants to constantly seek ways to escape, betray, or overthrow the system, creating a repeating cycle of conflict rather than sustainable social coherence.