10 ms·

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 s

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?
    - jerkstate 6y ago
      What makes you think that the lockdowns will be lifted after we are all vaccinated for this particular strain of COVID? That’s like saying “surely the government will stop monitoring private communications and correlating metadata, and disband unconstitutional FISA courts after Al-quaida has been defeated”
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        > What makes you think that the lockdowns will be lifted after we are all vaccinated for this particular strain of COVID Because I think most reps are acting in good faith, and nobody wants these lockdowns - they are just necessary. Why would someone want to continue them after Covid?
        jerkstate 6y ago
        Maybe as a show of good faith, those same reps should stop extending the patriot act, to convince the more suspicious among us that advances in tyranny are not permanent. Until that happens, I am not convinced, and I will continue to tell people like you that you shouldn’t fall for it either.
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        I'm open to being skeptical and I also think using the Patriot Act as a predixtive :intent-finder" highly problematic.
noahtallen 6y ago
Getting into why some totalitarian measures might be reasonable: I suspect more extreme up-front measures would actually stop the virus up-front. As a result, the other restrictions like masks wouldn’t be necessary for as long. So overall, one might say that the approach of nations like China, while more strict up front, had resulted in less overall restrictions in the long term, many fewer deaths, and even more economic activity. In the case of an out of control virus, people would be too scared to fly, for example, so economic activity would still be severely hindered. (Even with no restrictions at all.) What are the alternatives for dealing with pandemics which have the possibility to entirely destroy human life and society? If nothing at all is done by governments, it becomes up to individual responsibility and the markets to control the situation. This only works if people are too scared to do anything or go anywhere, which means things would have to get really bad (read: a lot of death) before it would work. What is the purpose of government if not to provide a safe and stable society to live in? We (unless you’re an anarchist) want laws and enforcement so that we can be free to live our lives without threat from others. You could even argue that infecting others when you knew you could avoid it is something we should restrict. In that way, wearing masks isn’t totalitarian, instead it’s a law which protects us from others.
- hammock 6y ago
  >I suspect more extreme up-front measures would actually stop the virus up-front. And if we were to allow these "more extreme measures," what's to stop a hostile actor from weaponizing our submission to totalitarian regime, by creating and releasing more viruses, in order to extend and increase said concentration of power? You assume benevelonce. You really WANT Drumpf to go full Pol Pot on your ass? "Only if he does what /I/ say, which is good for society, and not anything else!" Don't you see the flaw in your logic here? Haven't we see this play out in history many times before?
  - JoBrad 6y ago
    If it’s just one person or even a group of people arbitrarily saying what we should do, I’d agree with you. On the other hand, we have a genuine health crisis and medical professionals are telling us what we should do. Further, there is an end in sight, and no way to extend those curtailments due to other reasons not related to health. Also, the powers that the states are exercising are ones they have held since before the US was even a country, and have been upheld since, with restrictions. Hand waving about dictatorship doesn’t really apply here, despite the extreme measures being taken.
tshaddox 6y ago
No, even by that definition, most COVID restrictions are no more totalitarian in nature than existing health and safety codes. They’re more intense and broad restrictions, of course, in response to an intense health crisis, but they’re hardly different in kind than existing regulations. And yes, I’m sure there are exceptions.
jhanschoo 6y ago
I think there is an important distinction between onerous measures pursued by most democratic countries due to COVID-19 and those pursued by illiberal regimes. In the first case, the measures don't benefit the politicians much. People hate wearing masks and not being about to congregate in churches to discuss non-political topics. In the second case, the measures are usually targeted at suppressing negative sentiment against the political appointees. But in the cases of the democratic nations and their measures throughout, negative sentiment against politicians and the government who implement these measures are all allowed to run rampant by the government (in some cases by other politicians themselves). Protests are still held, and the government is still scrutinized and criticized by civil society. So going by your definition, there are important domains of society that the government does not attempt to dominate, that continue to serve as a check. Only those that are essential to the COVID-19 response are temporarily weakened.

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?
  - jerkstate 6y ago
    What makes you think that the lockdowns will be lifted after we are all vaccinated for this particular strain of COVID? That’s like saying “surely the government will stop monitoring private communications and correlating metadata, and disband unconstitutional FISA courts after Al-quaida has been defeated”
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      > What makes you think that the lockdowns will be lifted after we are all vaccinated for this particular strain of COVID Because I think most reps are acting in good faith, and nobody wants these lockdowns - they are just necessary. Why would someone want to continue them after Covid?
      - jerkstate 6y ago
        Maybe as a show of good faith, those same reps should stop extending the patriot act, to convince the more suspicious among us that advances in tyranny are not permanent. Until that happens, I am not convinced, and I will continue to tell people like you that you shouldn’t fall for it either.
        edmundsauto 6y ago
        I'm open to being skeptical and I also think using the Patriot Act as a predixtive :intent-finder" highly problematic.

noahtallen 6y ago

Getting into why some totalitarian measures might be reasonable: I suspect more extreme up-front measures would actually stop the virus up-front. As a result, the other restrictions like masks wouldn’t be necessary for as long. So overall, one might say that the approach of nations like China, while more strict up front, had resulted in less overall restrictions in the long term, many fewer deaths, and even more economic activity. In the case of an out of control virus, people would be too scared to fly, for example, so economic activity would still be severely hindered. (Even with no restrictions at all.) What are the alternatives for dealing with pandemics which have the possibility to entirely destroy human life and society? If nothing at all is done by governments, it becomes up to individual responsibility and the markets to control the situation. This only works if people are too scared to do anything or go anywhere, which means things would have to get really bad (read: a lot of death) before it would work. What is the purpose of government if not to provide a safe and stable society to live in? We (unless you’re an anarchist) want laws and enforcement so that we can be free to live our lives without threat from others. You could even argue that infecting others when you knew you could avoid it is something we should restrict. In that way, wearing masks isn’t totalitarian, instead it’s a law which protects us from others.

hammock 6y ago
>I suspect more extreme up-front measures would actually stop the virus up-front. And if we were to allow these "more extreme measures," what's to stop a hostile actor from weaponizing our submission to totalitarian regime, by creating and releasing more viruses, in order to extend and increase said concentration of power? You assume benevelonce. You really WANT Drumpf to go full Pol Pot on your ass? "Only if he does what /I/ say, which is good for society, and not anything else!" Don't you see the flaw in your logic here? Haven't we see this play out in history many times before?
- JoBrad 6y ago
  If it’s just one person or even a group of people arbitrarily saying what we should do, I’d agree with you. On the other hand, we have a genuine health crisis and medical professionals are telling us what we should do. Further, there is an end in sight, and no way to extend those curtailments due to other reasons not related to health. Also, the powers that the states are exercising are ones they have held since before the US was even a country, and have been upheld since, with restrictions. Hand waving about dictatorship doesn’t really apply here, despite the extreme measures being taken.

tshaddox 6y ago

No, even by that definition, most COVID restrictions are no more totalitarian in nature than existing health and safety codes. They’re more intense and broad restrictions, of course, in response to an intense health crisis, but they’re hardly different in kind than existing regulations. And yes, I’m sure there are exceptions.

jhanschoo 6y ago

I think there is an important distinction between onerous measures pursued by most democratic countries due to COVID-19 and those pursued by illiberal regimes. In the first case, the measures don't benefit the politicians much. People hate wearing masks and not being about to congregate in churches to discuss non-political topics. In the second case, the measures are usually targeted at suppressing negative sentiment against the political appointees. But in the cases of the democratic nations and their measures throughout, negative sentiment against politicians and the government who implement these measures are all allowed to run rampant by the government (in some cases by other politicians themselves). Protests are still held, and the government is still scrutinized and criticized by civil society. So going by your definition, there are important domains of society that the government does not attempt to dominate, that continue to serve as a check. Only those that are essential to the COVID-19 response are temporarily weakened.