Besides ideological self-righteousness, Aaronson left out one important component of oppressive regimes, which I think is actually far more important: it takes a relatively large amount of people to topple a regime, while small groups as well as individuals do nothing but expose themselves by rebelling. So no individual with any regard for his own personal safety has any incentive to rebel, and will instead go along with the flow for as long as it's tolerable to him.
But this, on the other hand, would create an odd situation where actually the vast majority of people might actually wish for rebellion, but none of them actually acts out on that wish. Which I also think is actually much more likelier than what he's putting forward. True crusaders are rare, most of people are "just following orders".
I don't think you need something as serious as an oppressive regime to get into this state. It sounds like an instance of the Abilene paradox - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox
> the vast majority of people might actually wish for rebellion, but none of them actually acts out on that wish.
You're talking about Mutual Knowledge[0]. Basically, the Emperor's New Clothes scenario: I know the emperor is naked, but does everyone else know and do I want to risk myself finding out?
This short Stephen Pinker video[1] explains it really well:
Is this situation really odd? I personally believe it is the norm.
The conditions to have a rebellion are two:
1/ Sufficient people around the place dreaming/hoping/yearning for change;
2/ An unusual event that cannot be managed by "just following orders"
As soon as the two are reunited, it's like throwing a lit match in a black powder keg. The larger the keg or the more powerful the match, the more spectacular the resulting rebellion will be.
In the case of the Soviet Union, the match was Chernobyl.
As I said, I also believe it's much more common. I meant "odd" in the sense that it might lead to unintuitive situations if we only consider the preferences of the people involved. For instance, there might be situations where not a single person in the room might be in favor of the status quo, but not a single one of them dares to say it either, all out of fear that one of the others might be.
Of course, it isn't "odd" if we also consider the incentives involved.
"But this, on the other hand, would create an odd situation where actually the vast majority of people might actually wish for rebellion, but none of them actually acts out on that wish."
But this, on the other hand, would create an odd situation where actually the vast majority of people might actually wish for rebellion, but none of them actually acts out on that wish. Which I also think is actually much more likelier than what he's putting forward. True crusaders are rare, most of people are "just following orders".