Zooming out I think this is a fundamental question of common sense that is not common. The American philosophy has always been to optimize for rebelling agains

Zooming out I think this is a fundamental question of common sense that is not common. The American philosophy has always been to optimize for rebelling against a "tyrannical" government. That the freedom in the system must be such that if a dictator comes along, you have the guns and the freedom of speech to resist. That's all well and good [citation needed], but it's not the only way. Most of the rest of the "progressive" "western" world (quotes because these words don't mean the same thing to everyone, but i'm using here to guide our understanding of what countries we are discussing) take the perspective that optimizing a society for the worst case scenario all the time means that people will die in the streets while billionaires get wealthier. This isn't abstract, the US is the richest country in the world by a lot, but is the worst western country in the world to be poor (assuming you like to be alive) So, yes, your point is valid. There have been fascist governments. And state-manufactured famines. And all of the sorts. But i feel like your hypothetical extends the norms past their breaking point. We have solutions for these things. It can't be up to a single leader to deem a pandemic in place and be the final word on it. There must scientific consensus and multiple people elected (not appointed) to positions where they can make this judgement through science not politics.