[staunch]

Temporary and mild authoritarian measures during a once-in-a-century pandemic make complete sense, even to very libertarian people. The U.S. has a track record of such measures being temporary, such as the much more extreme measures taken during WW2.

Comparing this kind of thing to what China is doing is drawing a false equivalency. There is no legitimate comparison to be made.

[abecedarius]

I agree with you about China going beyond that.

But now would be a good time to roll back all the temporary 9/11 stuff, if there are any politicians wanting to see some trust lent to talk about 'temporary'. Hard to see a better occasion for it ever coming up, with the 20th anniversary in a couple weeks.

About the WW2 example, I was surprised how much was still on the books and even in continuing 'emergency' use, reading https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Leviathan-Critical-Government-...

[staunch]

A lot of laws stay on the books but are not employed. Many of them should be struck down and many would be if they were ever brought to court. Judges need cases to strike them down.

The U.S. legal system is by no means perfect but there are very few examples of real abuse that go unchecked for long periods. U.S. history is full of overreach that is curtailed relatively quickly, although it can go on for years at a time.

The Patriot Act was not renewed. Very little over the overreach inspired by 9/11 is still in place. Even mass surveillance has been curtailed and restricted to a large degree (although not enough by my estimation).

[abecedarius]

Airport security theater and ID mandates; the AUMF; mass domestic spying, extent unknown but normalized and unquestionably at a level 20th-C. Americans would consider completely unamerican. For a start.

I think it's status-quo bias to look at this picture and think the high-order bit is that yes, temporary emergency measures were temporary. In the bigger picture there are dozens of separate national emergencies getting repeatedly renewed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i....

[trompetenaccoun]

I have lived in Mainland China and the West both equally long. What's happening in the West now is of course not exactly the same but it's absolutely comparable. There is a trend towards authoritarianism that did not even start with the pandemic, but it was a massive catalyst which suddenly made the problem much bigger. For many people in the system, this isn't apparent to them at all. Ask the average Chinese person and they will tell you nothing's wrong, things are going fine. They just restricted overseas travel and have stopped issuing passports in China. Many locals don't even know that because it wasn't reported much. Similarly, as someone who cares about civil rights, I notice that a lot of people in the West are not well informed about all the very concerning developments since the corona crisis. This goes to absurd levels like in Australia where the majority will tell you the government is handling things great, all the while protests are forbidden under threat of $5000 fines and jail time, people have been issued $1000 fines for talking to each other in public, parliament in Victoria is suspended, people get arrested for "illegaly" crossing state borders of their own country, etc...

No, the West isn't find. Mild tyranny isn't cool and how temporary these measures are is debated. If they actually were temporary, why is there no restriction for how long they can last? How much longer will it go? Nobody knows.

This is a loophole in our constitutions, they can use "emergency" situations to suspend civil rights indefinitely. This very same method has been used many times in history to establish dictatorships and totalitarian systems, so it's a very legitimate concern.

[staunch]

This isn't a made up "emergency" being used as an excuse to get people to wear masks...

And the U.S. has a legal system unlike any other country, that has proven itself able to prevent long-standing and unjustified overreach. The Supreme Court is incredibly powerful and has the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws, and has done so many times.

People should be concerned about this issue and pay close attention. But there is very little reason to be very concerned at all. These mask mandates, or even requiring vaccine proof, is not a cover story for a take over of the U.S.

These are extremely rational and justified, and even mild, measures being taken to address a very real and easily verified threat.

The U.S. is not Australia. No one's first amendment rights are being curtailed. Anything anyone wants to say is perfectly accessible to the public. No one is being fined.

And the U.S. is not China or a a banana republic and there's absolutely no evidence that we're in any danger of becoming like either.

[sillysaurusx]

I'm surprised to see you getting hammered for this sentiment. I agree with you and with the parent comment.

Both things can be simultaneously true.

I think you've implicitly agreed that the pandemic countermeasures were authoritarian, and this thread is saying "authoritarian bad." But we all saw what happened to places that delayed or denied countermeasures. If authoritarian bad, then that questions whether non-authoritarian is actually good in this case.

[nickff]

The parent made a specific claim:

>"Temporary and mild authoritarian measures during a once-in-a-century pandemic make complete sense, even to very libertarian people. "

I have not seen any (even centrist) libertarians supporting these measures; having checked the most mainstream libertarian publication (Reason). Additionally, 'very libertarian people' are minarchists, who definitely don't support these measures.

Have you actually seen/heard 'very libertarian people' endorsing these measures? Is it possible that the parent is projecting their beliefs onto others?

[sillysaurusx]

Libertarians? Sure, a few from my Twitter circle. Also pg comes to mind.

Very-libertarians? That’s a good point; I’m not sure I’ve seen any. But it’s hard to know who among us is very-libertarian except those who say so, which may be a small subset.

[908B64B197]

> Temporary

"Ahh, they fell for the temporary fallacy!"

[staunch]

U.S. history is full of examples of temporary measures taken during emergencies. This isn't a conspiracy by Big Mask.

[goostavos]

>even to very libertarian people

I'm not even "very" libertarian at all, yet I find the "temporary" (which is not so very temporary) and "mild" (which is not so very mild) authoritarian measures absolutely reprehensible.

Just saying something is a false equivalency doesn't make it so. Both instances have the government putting limits on your autonomy in unprecedented ways. The government is very boldly telling you what you can and cannot do and how much of it when allowed. I completely reject your characterization of totalitarianism as "mild" and "making complete sense."

[nickff]

Which libertarians are you talking to? Every libertarian I've read or heard from has been against these "[t]emporary and mild authoritarian measures". The more popular libertarian publication/website, "Reason" has been against (all?) these measures.

[staunch]

Libertarians or libertarians? I know a half dozen people that are, what I consider, very libertarian (not Libertarian) personally that think its entirely reasonable.

Most Libertarians are extremist libertarians in my view.

[pageandrew]

Temporary? We're a year and a half in, with no end in sight. If the vaccines weren't the end game, there is no end game. Indefinite public health authoritarianism.

Mild? Australians can't travel more than 5km from their homes. For essential purposes only. Vaccinated Australians can only leave their homes for 2 hours a day (unvaxed 1 hour a day).

[yupper32]

> If the vaccines weren't the end game, there is no end game.

Your argument is already flawed. We don't have vaccines available to everyone in the US yet.

[nightfly]

I mean, delta changed the math of how effective the vaccine was at preventing spread and mild illness. This is why the idea of a _novel_ coronavirus epidemic was bad, we had no idea where it was gonna go.

In Oregon we were on a very bad trajectory in the last two weeks with hospitals full and "elective" medical procedures suspended in some areas (my family being directly effected by this), that is now being deflected a bit by the renewed mask mandate. And in America we're very fortunate with how easy access we have to vaccines, other places aren't as lucky so they have to enact harsher measures...

[rootusrootus]

This is all true, but at the same time, it is a legitimate question to ask 'when does this stop?' I think we can all agree that it can't last forever. But Kate Brown mandated masks even outdoors, and while her intentions may be pure, she didn't provide any metrics that she will use to decide the mandate can be dropped. We are past the 70% vaccination threshold she originally used. Even then, the metric was created well after the mandates, and I disagree with that. When we are going to put such rules in place they should be defined from the beginning as temporary or permanent, and in the case of the former should come with a definition for the end. A date, a set of metrics, something specific.

[nightfly]

It will stop when our hospitals aren't stretched past their limits. I don't think anyone knows when that will be right now.

I've complained in other spaces about this, but it really feels like we're reliving the 1918 flu again. People dealt with restrictions the first year, but got fed up the second year. Costing lots of human lives.

[rootusrootus]

> It will stop when our hospitals aren't stretched past their limits. I don't think anyone knows when that will be right now.

My problem is simply the loose definition. Kate Brown didn't even say that much, I don't think. But if that's the metric, it should be easy enough to say so, and define it. E.g. "When ICU bed occupancy is below 90% and has declined for three consecutive weeks, the mandate is lifted."

I think many people would quibble less about the mandates if they weren't open-ended.

[m0zg]

LOL at people still thinking any of this is "temporary" or it will stay "mild". You're looking at stratification of society a year from now where anyone whose mandatory booster shot is older than 6 months can't participate, you must quadruple mask and wear a buttplug (farts spread covid too, you know), and you can't complain on FB or anywhere else about any of this because you'll get banned not just from FB but from everywhere, and lose your job, too.

[sk2020]

>once-in-a-century

There’s a newsworthy virus (usually SARS-like) every 2-5 years. There are notable “variants” every few months. The perceived risk of COVID has a lot to do with reporting, which is fickle at best. Heart disease kills hundreds of thousands and we basically don’t care.

>temporary

Nixon’s closing the Gold window and Bush’s GWOT come to mind as substantial counter-examples. I don’t foresee the US politburo giving up on their newfound unlimited and totally arbitrary authority so long as their appointed brain trust says it’s for your own good. Their subjects might start to ignore them, though.

[theintern]

How many of these variants or noteworthy viruses kill as many people? Genuine question, because covid has been on a different scale to SARS, MERS or any of the various animal flu pandemics, in terms of R number and how difficult it is to control.