This is authoritarianism in a nutshell. Free speech is only allowed to the extent that it confirms to what the "authorities" have to say on the matter. Any opinion dissinting from the authorities must be suppressed and, when suppression fails, punished.
We already see this happening around the world. The strength of the argument for authoritarianism is that most people aren't qualified to reach an informed conclusion that dissents from someone with the right education, training, and methods. From there, the authoritarians conclude that it is their duty to protect the ignorant public from themselves. Maybe the public would benefit from being controlled by benevolent and infallible overlords, but we must weigh those benefits against the cost (loss of freedom) and the risk (that the overlords are neither infallible nor benevolent).
The cost is real. Many people value personal freedom over government protection. Just look at the protests happening as a result of government quarantine measures. The risk is just as real. The "authorities" are just as vulnerable to mistake and personal biases as any other person. Much moreso when they are educated in universities with extreme political biases and when we adopt a scientific method that silences and shuns any results that stray from the accepted "concensus." Add to the top of that that the authorities are only as good as the data they are given and, as we saw with China recently, that data is released only to the degree that it furthers their national interests.
It's not necessary to outline the many examples of authorities abusing their power for un-benevolent proposes. We all agree that they do. We only disagree about the frequency that it happens. 30% of the country believes that all Republicans abuse their authority for personal gain with very few exceptions. 30% believe that all Democrats do with very few exceptions. The other 40% are somewhere in between.
Given that we all agree that the authorities are not infallible and that authority will be abused, we should make sure that the benefits purportedly offered by conceding public policy and discourse to the authorities is not outweighed by the loss of personal freedom and the risk that the authorities are wrong or that their data or conclusions are being manipulated by unscrupulous people.
Given the novelty of this virus, how little we know about it, and the political and economic incentives to mislead people about this crisis, the risks of taking the authoritarian approach far exceed the benefits.
This is authoritarianism in a nutshell. Free speech is only allowed to the extent that it confirms to what the "authorities" have to say on the matter. Any opinion dissinting from the authorities must be suppressed and, when suppression fails, punished.
We already see this happening around the world. The strength of the argument for authoritarianism is that most people aren't qualified to reach an informed conclusion that dissents from someone with the right education, training, and methods. From there, the authoritarians conclude that it is their duty to protect the ignorant public from themselves. Maybe the public would benefit from being controlled by benevolent and infallible overlords, but we must weigh those benefits against the cost (loss of freedom) and the risk (that the overlords are neither infallible nor benevolent).
The cost is real. Many people value personal freedom over government protection. Just look at the protests happening as a result of government quarantine measures. The risk is just as real. The "authorities" are just as vulnerable to mistake and personal biases as any other person. Much moreso when they are educated in universities with extreme political biases and when we adopt a scientific method that silences and shuns any results that stray from the accepted "concensus." Add to the top of that that the authorities are only as good as the data they are given and, as we saw with China recently, that data is released only to the degree that it furthers their national interests.
It's not necessary to outline the many examples of authorities abusing their power for un-benevolent proposes. We all agree that they do. We only disagree about the frequency that it happens. 30% of the country believes that all Republicans abuse their authority for personal gain with very few exceptions. 30% believe that all Democrats do with very few exceptions. The other 40% are somewhere in between.
Given that we all agree that the authorities are not infallible and that authority will be abused, we should make sure that the benefits purportedly offered by conceding public policy and discourse to the authorities is not outweighed by the loss of personal freedom and the risk that the authorities are wrong or that their data or conclusions are being manipulated by unscrupulous people.
Given the novelty of this virus, how little we know about it, and the political and economic incentives to mislead people about this crisis, the risks of taking the authoritarian approach far exceed the benefits.