5 ms·

Agreed on the description on how the State wielded the power (not very effectively I'd argue) yet I'm not claiming that the State knows what to do with power (s

by 627467 6y ago

Agreed on the description on how the State wielded the power (not very effectively I'd argue) yet I'm not claiming that the State knows what to do with power (specially in such pandemic situation), I'm merely describing that the people seem to have accepted very quickly and with little resistance whatever the State decided (late or not)

mindslight 6y ago
It's hard for me to judge, despite being quite libertarian, because to me the closure orders were finally in line with what I had already been doing. The closure orders certainly seemed abrupt compared to the past several decades, but not necessarily in the context of previous pandemics. I get your general point with regards to say the "patriot" act, mass surveillance, etc. But on the other side of that, intelligence agents have complained of there simply being too much data to sift through. So once again it could be a kind of miswielded faux power rather than actual power. I think you'd have to dig into the historical record to really find out. I'm not a big reader of history, but many things from the past seem more authoritarian. I mean, the draft. Can you even imagine that today?
- 627467 6y ago
  Many (liberal) countries still hold mandatory military services. I think there was much more resistance to the general consensus around 9/11 and other "man made catastrophes" than this one. "Science" has shut off any debate and human creativity.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    You say '"science"', I say reality. There isn't much room for creativity, because nobody wants elective exposure when the spread is still fundamentally unmanaged and growing. There is no middleground of prudently half-exposing yourself. Rather you go out only when you have to and mitigate that exposure as much as possible. The political debate is basically driven by people wanting others to ignore the problem, so that they themselves will be less disrupted. For military service, specifically the US has moved away from the draft though. It's much less authoritarian to effortlessly cheerlead for sending employees off to die, versus being so whipped up that the majority of the population is willing to go themselves. Mandatory military service only works when people trust the government. If USG attempted to institute a draft for its next nation building exercise, it would find out how little support its wars actually have.
- kitotik 6y ago
  > I mean, the draft. Can you even imagine that today? Not in the US, no. 1) Theres not a reason to when there are so many poor people who volunteer for the promise of 3 hots and a cot, healthcare, and an education 2) The workarounds that >=middle class would have to do to keep their children exempt would be harder to keep quiet in the age of social media 3) If >= middle class kids were actually forced into service, it would be much more difficult to garner wide spread support for military actions 4) There’s much more legal flexibility now than there used to be. It’s not really required or useful to formally declare war and open up a draft.
MauranKilom 6y ago
I'm honestly curious what reaction from "the people" you would expect. Even if I was concerned with the source of the orders, if the measures are perfectly reasonable and expected then... should I still defy them? Serious question.
- 627467 6y ago
  I don't know what I expected the people as a whole to do, but I guess I didn't expect such quick consensus and lack of debate/discussion on such complex matter. The people have certainly debated/went up in arms for much lesser matters in the past. I feel there's a wider range of possible reactions between instant compliance to outright defiance. But I don't see many of those in-between reactions. It may be me...
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  I've been quite surprised at how quickly people went from calling Trump "literally Hitler" or at the very least a Russian puppet/Manchurian candidate to complaining that he didn't come down with a hard enough iron fist and start doing things like declaring martial law to more strictly enforce lockdowns. I think there's some very interesting things going on here psychologically with respect to fear, team sports, and state power.
  - licebmi__at__ 6y ago
    Maybe because the critic is not really a contradictory critic once you see the context. It's like complaining that critics of Stalin can't criticize him for both making the people poor, and making some people (the party) richer. Ignoring the context doesn't make you smart.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      I'm not ignoring the context at all. If I genuinely believed that someone was evil, I cannot imagine a scenario in which I'd want them to have more control over me. The fact that so many people feel the opposite of me in this particular context is really interesting and hard for me to grasp. I want to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone is right or wrong. I just find it fascinating.

by 627467 6y ago

mindslight 6y ago

It's hard for me to judge, despite being quite libertarian, because to me the closure orders were finally in line with what I had already been doing. The closure orders certainly seemed abrupt compared to the past several decades, but not necessarily in the context of previous pandemics. I get your general point with regards to say the "patriot" act, mass surveillance, etc. But on the other side of that, intelligence agents have complained of there simply being too much data to sift through. So once again it could be a kind of miswielded faux power rather than actual power. I think you'd have to dig into the historical record to really find out. I'm not a big reader of history, but many things from the past seem more authoritarian. I mean, the draft. Can you even imagine that today?

627467 6y ago
Many (liberal) countries still hold mandatory military services. I think there was much more resistance to the general consensus around 9/11 and other "man made catastrophes" than this one. "Science" has shut off any debate and human creativity.
- mindslight 6y ago
  You say '"science"', I say reality. There isn't much room for creativity, because nobody wants elective exposure when the spread is still fundamentally unmanaged and growing. There is no middleground of prudently half-exposing yourself. Rather you go out only when you have to and mitigate that exposure as much as possible. The political debate is basically driven by people wanting others to ignore the problem, so that they themselves will be less disrupted. For military service, specifically the US has moved away from the draft though. It's much less authoritarian to effortlessly cheerlead for sending employees off to die, versus being so whipped up that the majority of the population is willing to go themselves. Mandatory military service only works when people trust the government. If USG attempted to institute a draft for its next nation building exercise, it would find out how little support its wars actually have.
kitotik 6y ago
> I mean, the draft. Can you even imagine that today? Not in the US, no. 1) Theres not a reason to when there are so many poor people who volunteer for the promise of 3 hots and a cot, healthcare, and an education 2) The workarounds that >=middle class would have to do to keep their children exempt would be harder to keep quiet in the age of social media 3) If >= middle class kids were actually forced into service, it would be much more difficult to garner wide spread support for military actions 4) There’s much more legal flexibility now than there used to be. It’s not really required or useful to formally declare war and open up a draft.

MauranKilom 6y ago

I'm honestly curious what reaction from "the people" you would expect. Even if I was concerned with the source of the orders, if the measures are perfectly reasonable and expected then... should I still defy them? Serious question.

627467 6y ago
I don't know what I expected the people as a whole to do, but I guess I didn't expect such quick consensus and lack of debate/discussion on such complex matter. The people have certainly debated/went up in arms for much lesser matters in the past. I feel there's a wider range of possible reactions between instant compliance to outright defiance. But I don't see many of those in-between reactions. It may be me...
Consultant32452 6y ago
I've been quite surprised at how quickly people went from calling Trump "literally Hitler" or at the very least a Russian puppet/Manchurian candidate to complaining that he didn't come down with a hard enough iron fist and start doing things like declaring martial law to more strictly enforce lockdowns. I think there's some very interesting things going on here psychologically with respect to fear, team sports, and state power.
- licebmi__at__ 6y ago
  Maybe because the critic is not really a contradictory critic once you see the context. It's like complaining that critics of Stalin can't criticize him for both making the people poor, and making some people (the party) richer. Ignoring the context doesn't make you smart.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    I'm not ignoring the context at all. If I genuinely believed that someone was evil, I cannot imagine a scenario in which I'd want them to have more control over me. The fact that so many people feel the opposite of me in this particular context is really interesting and hard for me to grasp. I want to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone is right or wrong. I just find it fascinating.