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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
>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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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”
> 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?
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.
> 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.
>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)
Where I am at (Austin, TX, USA) it is a sliding scale. Depending on a number of metrics (eg, rate of infection, hospital occupancy), the percentage occupancy allowed in restaurants goes up or down. And yes, when it is at stage 5, it changes to zero occupancy, allowing only to-go orders.
I have zero worries that this is part of a power grab by evil overlords; they have nothing to gain from this, unlike the power grab to make encryption have government accessible backdoors, or routing all internet traffic through NSA scrapers.
> jailing of mask violators as well
Where are they being jailed? None in the US that I know of. I'm sure there are a few people who have created such a disturbance that they had to be removed by police, but that is ancillary to the reason they are getting nabbed, such as the guy at a Costco screaming at people and threatening to hurt them because they told him to put on a mask. He was arrested (but not jailed) for threatening people, not because he didn't wear a mask.
Yes, the shutdowns are having bad consequences for a lot of businesses. There is a pandemic after all, and pandemics cause negative consequences.
> mounting evidence that mask mandates don't work and/or make the problem worse
I'm sure such studies exist, but there are plenty that contradict your claim, and I do not believe there is a trend in your direction. There are also people who believe condoms not only doesn't reduce the spread of AIDS but makes it worse [1]. Otherwise smart people can believe also sorts of outrageous stuff if it comports with their existing belief system.
The article you linked to was jailed for not listening to the judge. Yes, it was about his refusal to wear a mask in the court. But if someone in court talks while the judge talks and the judge commands them to be silent, the judge can jail that person for refusal to be quiet. Or if they eat in court and refuse to stop eating. Or any number of things that are completely legal outside the courtroom.
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.
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
AIER is a libertarian think tank which exists solely to reduce any type of government "interference" in freedom. I don't trust them to be honest arbiters of science -- their sole angle is people and companies should be free to do whatever they want (including infecting other people apparently).
Yes, you provided a link to a site which has links to 24 other papers. Providing proof in this case required you to cut and past a URL; you are asking me to read and rebut 24 papers, and I'm not about to. However, I did look them up and the wikipedia article about them [1] said the scientific community has condemned their positions on COVID, which is herd immunity -- everyone should get sick, we should live with 3M deaths in the US, so businesses can get back to selling stuff like normal.
If so, that is as totalitarian as requiring people to stop at red stoplights.