In consideration that the purpose of life is the search for truth, we would like to think then that when truth butts heads against the given orthodoxy of the age, that subsequently, the orthodoxy would change to accommodate that truth should itself always reign supreme. Regrettably, that doesn’t appear to be the case, at all; in which, time after time, those that are ahead of the curve, aren’t seen for what they really are – brilliant innovators and brilliant thinkers, but rather are typically seen to be an annoyance to that which is the prevailing orthodoxy of the age, and thus these prodigies are often put in their place by those in authority, by essentially having to “come to heel” or even being forced to recant.
The most unfortunate thing, is that those that believe that we live in an information age, in which, truth is thus always in the forefront, come what may, don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t much matter, how much technology, knowledge, or knowhow that a given time period has, when contrasted to how those that are in authority handle that which is inconvenient and especially troubling to the perceived stability of their rule. That is to say, in any governance which in its structure is hierarchical, then all those that wish to challenge the orthodoxy and the belief system which is currently in play, are going to find it problematic to be successful in doing so, mainly because those that are the ruling members of that governance, who feel challenged by this new information, are often going to desire to, at a minimum, re-spin such to support their orthodox narrative, instead. This, then, is why we see so often, that those that think “outside the box” are pressured, through all sorts of stratagems, to get back inside the box, under the guise that doing so, would be better for the people, in whole; because to challenge long-held beliefs, is unsettling, in ways, that could undo things which that governance would prefer to see be kept settled and done.
All of this basically means, that change, even that change which is built upon truth and insight, can be incredibly slow to occur, because those that have power and authority, of which, they discern that such change would impact their status, negatively, are going to preclude such change from occurring, in order to better defend their position and thus be able to best maintain their status. This signifies, that the freedom to express ourselves, the freedom to search for that which interests us, as well as the freedom to openly discuss things and matters that are of pressing concern to us, is vital, to the overall liberty of a given nation – for when, that which is of most interest to us, is essentially edited or is not even disseminated, then those societies, living under those types of restrictions, will invariably regress from getting ever closer to meaningful breakthroughs, important discoveries, and to truth.
In short, the best society, not only permits open debate, but also countenances dissent to the prevailing orthodoxies of that age, in the sure knowledge that by doing so, this will, in the end, make for a society that focuses more on enlightenment than blind obedience.