5 ms·

> Historians will look back on this I think they will be more interested in the enthusiastic adoption of totalitarian measures by hitherto democratic societies

> Historians will look back on this I think they will be more interested in the enthusiastic adoption of totalitarian measures by hitherto democratic societies.

soared 6y ago
Agreed. Regardless of whether those decisions were necessary/ethical/correct/etc it is an incredibly unique situation.
tasty_freeze 6y ago
I'm reading between your lines, but by "totalitarian measures" do you mean asking people to temporarily wear masks, wash their hands, stay home, and restricting the density of people at gathering spots? If so, that is as totalitarian as requiring people to stop at red stoplights.
- barnacled 6y ago
  In the UK law is being passed by decree without parliamentary approval, fundamental democratic freedoms are being specifically prohibited - freedom of speech, assembly and association and prosecution of people conducting hitherto legal and proper businesses. The pattern is entirely that of emergency 'enabling law' examples from the past when equally scary things gave them apparent justification. Boiling things down to 'just asking to wear a mask' is at best deeply naive and at worst arrogantly dismissive. Break out of the soundbites and take a moment to think about what's happening in historical context. If you want a serious and reasoned analysis of the worries, concerns and threats under these circumstances (at least from a UK perspective) I firmly recommend you view Lord Sumption's thoughts on this matter (recently retired judge from the supreme court of the UK with a long and highly respected career in the judiciary) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0 Unfortunately under circumstances such as the covid-19 mess we all live under (and thank your lucky stars you are in a 1st world country, the 3rd world will suffer at unimaginable levels, highly likely considerably moreso due to covid-19 aid cuts than covid-19 itself) things are considerably greyer than 'conspiracy theory nuts vs. just asking to put a mask on'. If only it were that simple.
  - tasty_freeze 6y ago
    Sorry, I don't have time for an 1h16m video. I skipped the intro and started listening to Lord Sumption's part and quickly got bogged down in politics about the current government came into power saddled by constitutional baggage, blah blah. It sounds like he is trying to score points on unrelated matters and gave up. There are an infinite number of things which one might be worried could happen, and it is good to stay vigilant to those things. I have little fear that once the pandemic is mostly behind us that these temporary restrictions will be lifted -- we already know that many republicans think it is a political hoax, and I don't know of a single liberal who wouldn't love to get back to normal.
    - barnacled 6y ago
      Thank you for taking the time to take a look. It is a lengthily one but I do certainly recommend spending the time to listen, it is of course very UK-centric but a lot of the points he makes are valid globally. I am not advocating some absolute zero-measure approach but I also don't agree with the lockdowns which have repeatedly failed to work on any kind of permanent basis and whose costs are entirely ignored. The rational approach is a measured one taking into account all costs. Unfortunately politics, especially partisan ones don't work that way...
      - pjc50 6y ago
        Do you have a casualty estimate for not doing the lockdowns?
      - DanBC 6y ago
        >and whose costs are entirely ignored. The costs are not being ignored. Government frequently talks about the need to keep schools open to avoid some of those costs; we've recently had rapid release of suicide stats (no rise so far, but lots of caution needed); we're v worried about access to other forms of healthcare (London has today said they can't guarantee ambo service to home birth delivery that goes wrong) etc etc. People are constantly checking we've got the balance right. But the fact remains: covid kills lots of people and it seriously harms very many others. Those people who are harmed take time to recover and that has long term financial and health implications for them and their families. https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113 https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113
- hhggfdss 6y ago
  Oh come on, you're going to describe the forceful closure and subsequent self inflicted complete devastation of several industries (dining, entertainment) as "asking people to stay home"? That's pretty rich, especially if you realize that it's not just a matter of "more stimulus" because stimulus money has to come from taxing a working economy or it's printing money. Tell the people who've lost their livelihoods because of government shutdowns that they were not subject to an oppressive authoritarian decree. I do wonder at the end of this which will cause more deaths: the disease itself, or deaths of despair and of avoiding treatment for other illnesses out of fear caused by mass media, and of economic distress caused not directly by the disease but by governments' reactions to it.
- admissionsguy 6y ago
  I am trying to avoid discussing a particular political position, but rather going by the dictionary definition of totalitarianism as a system where "the state strives to control every aspect of life and civil society" through the use of propaganda, control over economy, censorship, surveillance, limited freedom of movement, and so forth. Even if you believe these are means to a noble end in the context of COVID-19, I think it is hard to deny that the response has used quite a few tools from the totalitarian toolset. Even explicitly, the early calls for lockdowns used China as a positive example.
  - syndacks 6y ago
    In my mind totalitarianism is a means to an end. The end with these "tools" now is to limit death, but the means aren't working well (in the west, anyways). In a traditional auth. situation, the end is usually perpetual power and/or some ideological bend (genocide or something). Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think we're in a traditional auth. situation now. It's a classic "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" in my mind. Sure we're seeing some signs of government overreach, but the impetus is to save lives, not some consipriacy to control the masses. Doing so misses the mark and distracts from the real issue at hand.
    - jerkstate 6y ago
      One problem is, it’s very hard to get a government to give up so-called “emergency powers” even after the emergency is long over. How many times has the Patriot Act been renewed now?
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        What part of the pandemic response do you think will be difficult for government to give up? Certainly the large measures (lockdowns) will be lifted once we are vaccinated. Is this more of a general fear, or do you have something relevant to the current situation?
        6y ago
- cgriswald 6y ago
  > I'm reading between your lines, but by "totalitarian measures" do you mean asking people to temporarily wear masks, wash their hands, stay home, and restricting the density of people at gathering spots? Did your government really just ask? My local government responded by drafting and frequently, but irregularly, updating an increasing complex document—by decree rather than through the legislature—the violation of which was a misdemeanor (or, for businesses, may result in being closed down). To this day, individual businesses are asking the government what steps they need to take in order to operate. The answers they receive are not in any legally drafted document. Effectively businesses are asking government what they need to do to avoid the scrutiny of government; not what they need to do to stay within the law. This was a massive insertion of government control into the lives of individuals, which is the essence of totalitarianism. I agree that wearing masks, washing your hands, and avoiding unnecessary contact with others are all good things to do. I do those things voluntarily; and would have done so if asked, even if it wasn't a misdemeanor not to do so. That doesn't mean I'm blind to the totalitarian measures some governments took to get there; or to the risks that imposes for the future.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- hammock 6y ago
  >restricting the density of people at gathering spots? Restricting the density to... Zero? Is that what they are calling the forced shutdown of indoor and outdoor restaurants, gyms and other places of business and subsequent jailing of violators now? (And jailing of mask violators as well, despite mounting evidence that mask mandates don't work and/or make the problem worse)
  - aynsof 6y ago
    Do you have evidence of the claim that mask mandates don't work? Not trolling - I'm genuinely interested. My understanding was that masks worked to reduce transmission.
    - hammock 6y ago
      Here is a list of 24 published papers that demonstrate lockdowns not working, in various forms including mask mandates. https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/ https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co... Here is a new study (not published) that suggests mask mandates are counterproductive https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821?s=19 https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821?s... Would be nice if the mainstream media covered any of this.
      - aynsof 6y ago
        Thanks for the reading. I'm checking it out now.
      - free652 6y ago
        Except if you read the papers they aren't saying that. You are trying to spread BS here. We can take a look at China where the lockdown worked quiet well. >Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective >From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact >Conclusions: A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives
barnacled 6y ago
Yes it is astonishing - I think the fact the context ends criticism of measures that would be considered laughable at ordinary times goes a long way to explaining similarly extreme measures we find difficult to understand from the past. History tells us govts that gain powers during emergencies are extremely reticent to give them up once the ostensible emergency is over.
- barnacled 6y ago
  I'm very proud to see this go to negative votes, as it entirely proves my point. Every time democracies abandon that for authoritarian measures there is always a seemingly highly justified reason at the time and those who speak out would be similarly pilloried... Injustices are always justified but never just.
- drewrv 6y ago
  Gaining the power to shut down businesses that are a public health threat? They already had that power and use it. Most people are glad restaurants are held to cleanliness standards and concert venues have capacity limits per fire code. Requiring people to wear something in public? They already do that too with shirts and pants. And again, I think most people prefer it that way.
  - barnacled 6y ago
    Again you are trivialising things that are far wider-reaching as do many on the 'forever lockdown' side. They are not just shutting down public health risks and asking people to wear masks, they are instituting, at least in the UK, law by decree (as per provisions by the Public Health Act 1984) clearly exceeding the intentions of it, for example. I recommend the lord Sumption video I linked in another comment if you want more details, but authoritarian measures are being used and govts historically do NOT like to let go of powers granted during emergencies. E.g. the Patriot act... The thing with stuff like that is people like me who point this out will get sneered at at the time, but later when these powers are abused you'll forget that we warned you. This is NOT trivial. This is NOT small.
- sampo 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Aunche 6y ago
All functional democracies have mechanisms to establish totalitarian control during a state of emergency. Applying this during a pandemic is completely reasonable.
lefrenchy 6y ago
I feel like this take is just overused. This whole line of thinking presupposes that Western Democratic Societies gain anything from locking people down, which I don’t think they do. Our economies are (generally speaking) consumer economies built on a base of individualized consumption and hedonistic pursuit with no regard for collective good. Locking people down and inhibiting the engine of our capitalist economies serves no benefit. Not to mention all the other avenues of control that are already existent and much more obscure. It wouldn’t make sense to destroy the economy and the legitimacy that props up the current power structures in order to gain control that already largely exists either through the state or private industry. This feels like a way of contrasting the current situation with measures take post 9/11, which I think are much more nefarious and unjustified. To be clear, I’m sure historians will be interested in the measures taken to fight this pandemic, just not for some “totalitarian control” reasons but rather for the necessity of fighting the virus on a global scale. The scale of the measures are unprecedented, but locking down isn’t some crazy novel idea. I mean even in Camus’ “The Plague” there is mention of that kind of strategy.

> Historians will look back on this I think they will be more interested in the enthusiastic adoption of totalitarian measures by hitherto democratic societies.

soared 6y ago

Agreed. Regardless of whether those decisions were necessary/ethical/correct/etc it is an incredibly unique situation.

tasty_freeze 6y ago

I'm reading between your lines, but by "totalitarian measures" do you mean asking people to temporarily wear masks, wash their hands, stay home, and restricting the density of people at gathering spots? If so, that is as totalitarian as requiring people to stop at red stoplights.

barnacled 6y ago
In the UK law is being passed by decree without parliamentary approval, fundamental democratic freedoms are being specifically prohibited - freedom of speech, assembly and association and prosecution of people conducting hitherto legal and proper businesses. The pattern is entirely that of emergency 'enabling law' examples from the past when equally scary things gave them apparent justification. Boiling things down to 'just asking to wear a mask' is at best deeply naive and at worst arrogantly dismissive. Break out of the soundbites and take a moment to think about what's happening in historical context. If you want a serious and reasoned analysis of the worries, concerns and threats under these circumstances (at least from a UK perspective) I firmly recommend you view Lord Sumption's thoughts on this matter (recently retired judge from the supreme court of the UK with a long and highly respected career in the judiciary) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0 Unfortunately under circumstances such as the covid-19 mess we all live under (and thank your lucky stars you are in a 1st world country, the 3rd world will suffer at unimaginable levels, highly likely considerably moreso due to covid-19 aid cuts than covid-19 itself) things are considerably greyer than 'conspiracy theory nuts vs. just asking to put a mask on'. If only it were that simple.
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  Sorry, I don't have time for an 1h16m video. I skipped the intro and started listening to Lord Sumption's part and quickly got bogged down in politics about the current government came into power saddled by constitutional baggage, blah blah. It sounds like he is trying to score points on unrelated matters and gave up. There are an infinite number of things which one might be worried could happen, and it is good to stay vigilant to those things. I have little fear that once the pandemic is mostly behind us that these temporary restrictions will be lifted -- we already know that many republicans think it is a political hoax, and I don't know of a single liberal who wouldn't love to get back to normal.
  - barnacled 6y ago
    Thank you for taking the time to take a look. It is a lengthily one but I do certainly recommend spending the time to listen, it is of course very UK-centric but a lot of the points he makes are valid globally. I am not advocating some absolute zero-measure approach but I also don't agree with the lockdowns which have repeatedly failed to work on any kind of permanent basis and whose costs are entirely ignored. The rational approach is a measured one taking into account all costs. Unfortunately politics, especially partisan ones don't work that way...
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Do you have a casualty estimate for not doing the lockdowns?
    - DanBC 6y ago
      >and whose costs are entirely ignored. The costs are not being ignored. Government frequently talks about the need to keep schools open to avoid some of those costs; we've recently had rapid release of suicide stats (no rise so far, but lots of caution needed); we're v worried about access to other forms of healthcare (London has today said they can't guarantee ambo service to home birth delivery that goes wrong) etc etc. People are constantly checking we've got the balance right. But the fact remains: covid kills lots of people and it seriously harms very many others. Those people who are harmed take time to recover and that has long term financial and health implications for them and their families. https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113 https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113
hhggfdss 6y ago
Oh come on, you're going to describe the forceful closure and subsequent self inflicted complete devastation of several industries (dining, entertainment) as "asking people to stay home"? That's pretty rich, especially if you realize that it's not just a matter of "more stimulus" because stimulus money has to come from taxing a working economy or it's printing money. Tell the people who've lost their livelihoods because of government shutdowns that they were not subject to an oppressive authoritarian decree. I do wonder at the end of this which will cause more deaths: the disease itself, or deaths of despair and of avoiding treatment for other illnesses out of fear caused by mass media, and of economic distress caused not directly by the disease but by governments' reactions to it.
admissionsguy 6y ago
I am trying to avoid discussing a particular political position, but rather going by the dictionary definition of totalitarianism as a system where "the state strives to control every aspect of life and civil society" through the use of propaganda, control over economy, censorship, surveillance, limited freedom of movement, and so forth. Even if you believe these are means to a noble end in the context of COVID-19, I think it is hard to deny that the response has used quite a few tools from the totalitarian toolset. Even explicitly, the early calls for lockdowns used China as a positive example.
- syndacks 6y ago
  In my mind totalitarianism is a means to an end. The end with these "tools" now is to limit death, but the means aren't working well (in the west, anyways). In a traditional auth. situation, the end is usually perpetual power and/or some ideological bend (genocide or something). Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think we're in a traditional auth. situation now. It's a classic "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" in my mind. Sure we're seeing some signs of government overreach, but the impetus is to save lives, not some consipriacy to control the masses. Doing so misses the mark and distracts from the real issue at hand.
  - jerkstate 6y ago
    One problem is, it’s very hard to get a government to give up so-called “emergency powers” even after the emergency is long over. How many times has the Patriot Act been renewed now?
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      What part of the pandemic response do you think will be difficult for government to give up? Certainly the large measures (lockdowns) will be lifted once we are vaccinated. Is this more of a general fear, or do you have something relevant to the current situation?
      - 6y ago
cgriswald 6y ago
> I'm reading between your lines, but by "totalitarian measures" do you mean asking people to temporarily wear masks, wash their hands, stay home, and restricting the density of people at gathering spots? Did your government really just ask? My local government responded by drafting and frequently, but irregularly, updating an increasing complex document—by decree rather than through the legislature—the violation of which was a misdemeanor (or, for businesses, may result in being closed down). To this day, individual businesses are asking the government what steps they need to take in order to operate. The answers they receive are not in any legally drafted document. Effectively businesses are asking government what they need to do to avoid the scrutiny of government; not what they need to do to stay within the law. This was a massive insertion of government control into the lives of individuals, which is the essence of totalitarianism. I agree that wearing masks, washing your hands, and avoiding unnecessary contact with others are all good things to do. I do those things voluntarily; and would have done so if asked, even if it wasn't a misdemeanor not to do so. That doesn't mean I'm blind to the totalitarian measures some governments took to get there; or to the risks that imposes for the future.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hammock 6y ago
>restricting the density of people at gathering spots? Restricting the density to... Zero? Is that what they are calling the forced shutdown of indoor and outdoor restaurants, gyms and other places of business and subsequent jailing of violators now? (And jailing of mask violators as well, despite mounting evidence that mask mandates don't work and/or make the problem worse)
- aynsof 6y ago
  Do you have evidence of the claim that mask mandates don't work? Not trolling - I'm genuinely interested. My understanding was that masks worked to reduce transmission.
  - hammock 6y ago
    Here is a list of 24 published papers that demonstrate lockdowns not working, in various forms including mask mandates. https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/ https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co... Here is a new study (not published) that suggests mask mandates are counterproductive https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821?s=19 https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1340725086278434821?s... Would be nice if the mainstream media covered any of this.
    - aynsof 6y ago
      Thanks for the reading. I'm checking it out now.
    - free652 6y ago
      Except if you read the papers they aren't saying that. You are trying to spread BS here. We can take a look at China where the lockdown worked quiet well. >Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective >From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact >Conclusions: A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives

barnacled 6y ago

Yes it is astonishing - I think the fact the context ends criticism of measures that would be considered laughable at ordinary times goes a long way to explaining similarly extreme measures we find difficult to understand from the past. History tells us govts that gain powers during emergencies are extremely reticent to give them up once the ostensible emergency is over.

barnacled 6y ago
I'm very proud to see this go to negative votes, as it entirely proves my point. Every time democracies abandon that for authoritarian measures there is always a seemingly highly justified reason at the time and those who speak out would be similarly pilloried... Injustices are always justified but never just.
drewrv 6y ago
Gaining the power to shut down businesses that are a public health threat? They already had that power and use it. Most people are glad restaurants are held to cleanliness standards and concert venues have capacity limits per fire code. Requiring people to wear something in public? They already do that too with shirts and pants. And again, I think most people prefer it that way.
- barnacled 6y ago
  Again you are trivialising things that are far wider-reaching as do many on the 'forever lockdown' side. They are not just shutting down public health risks and asking people to wear masks, they are instituting, at least in the UK, law by decree (as per provisions by the Public Health Act 1984) clearly exceeding the intentions of it, for example. I recommend the lord Sumption video I linked in another comment if you want more details, but authoritarian measures are being used and govts historically do NOT like to let go of powers granted during emergencies. E.g. the Patriot act... The thing with stuff like that is people like me who point this out will get sneered at at the time, but later when these powers are abused you'll forget that we warned you. This is NOT trivial. This is NOT small.
sampo 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Aunche 6y ago

All functional democracies have mechanisms to establish totalitarian control during a state of emergency. Applying this during a pandemic is completely reasonable.

lefrenchy 6y ago

I feel like this take is just overused. This whole line of thinking presupposes that Western Democratic Societies gain anything from locking people down, which I don’t think they do. Our economies are (generally speaking) consumer economies built on a base of individualized consumption and hedonistic pursuit with no regard for collective good. Locking people down and inhibiting the engine of our capitalist economies serves no benefit. Not to mention all the other avenues of control that are already existent and much more obscure. It wouldn’t make sense to destroy the economy and the legitimacy that props up the current power structures in order to gain control that already largely exists either through the state or private industry. This feels like a way of contrasting the current situation with measures take post 9/11, which I think are much more nefarious and unjustified. To be clear, I’m sure historians will be interested in the measures taken to fight this pandemic, just not for some “totalitarian control” reasons but rather for the necessity of fighting the virus on a global scale. The scale of the measures are unprecedented, but locking down isn’t some crazy novel idea. I mean even in Camus’ “The Plague” there is mention of that kind of strategy.