Skip to main content

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims


The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.  

A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus checks and another eviction freeze.

Those that support lockdowns say that liberties are luxuries provided to us by society. In truth, individual liberty enables a free society. This freedom comes at a high and often deadly price, and it would be foolish to give it up just because Chicken Little says “the sky is falling.” To take them away is tyranny and does not make anyone safer. Giving up liberty tends to be a one-way ratchet: once you let government tell you how to live, it gets a taste for power, and you become accustomed to servitude. 

Some states and cities already seem content to extend their states of emergency ad infinitum. What was once 15 days to "flatten the curve" has seemingly become "when people stop getting sick, we can get back to normal." The goal for some seems to be the creation of a new normal, where government can lock down businesses and restrict travel indefinitely without public outcry or objection. 

The arbitrary nature of the orders does not inspire confidence in the ones issuing them. Do officials presume that people's immune systems turn to pumpkins at midnight? How else to explain orders requiring bars and restaurants to close at 11 pm? It is hard to see how closing certain businesses earlier can stop the spread of COVID-19. If these businesses spread the virus, they will spread it just as much at noon as they would at midnight. If they are safe before 11 pm, then they should still be safe after 11 pm. If anything, such an order might encourage people to crowd into bars and restaurants before 11 pm when otherwise they would have visited in more spread-out groups through the night. Similarly, restrictions on the size of gatherings make little sense. Does the virus know the difference between a group of 10 and one of 11, and avoid the former but not the latter? The most asinine government order comes from the Ohio High School Athletic Association, who declared it is okay for students to wrestle, (i.e., make lots of body contact), but it is not safe for them to shake hands before and after matches.

Of course, these restrictions do not apply to those making them.  Throughout the year, politicians have flouted their own COVID-19 restrictions even as they urge everyday Americans to forgo their holiday plans. This special treatment elected officials give themselves is nothing new, but it is more blatant in a time when more and more people are restricted from participating in normal activities such as visiting family and working. Gavin Newsom of California was caught having dinner indoors with lobbyists in violation of his own orders. While he apologized, a man without the same political clout would have been fined and arrested. He is far from the only politician to get away with this.

Fortunately, there are bright spots in this fight. People across the nation are getting tired of the lockdowns and restrictions. They see the hypocrisy of their elected leaders and realize they don't have to put up with it. They can go out and work and protect themselves and their loved ones by trusting their common sense. People are maintaining their holiday plans and traveling to meet family in spite of government restrictions and warnings. Likewise, restaurants and businesses, more and more, are opening up in defiance of government orders. Hopefully, this strain of civil disobedience continues as more people see the banality of lockdowns and other restrictions.

Spencer Cadavero is a Research Associate at 1889 institute and can be reached at scadavero@1889institute.org. 

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more