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

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

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each ep...
Read more

AG Hunter Lowers Boom on Barrier to Entry; Legislature Should Follow His Lead

Even as the Oklahoma Supreme Court  struck down  a recent alcohol distribution law, the Attorney General paved the way for the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Law Enforcement Commission (ABLE) to remove an obstacle from the expansion of liquor store competition - finding that Oklahoma’s five-year in-state residency requirement before one can own a liquor store likely runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution and recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.  The AG’s  opinion , issued at the end of December, informs the state’s alcohol commission that portions of the state constitution (Article 28A, Section 4(A) & (B)) are unenforceable. These provisions require that ABLE issue a Retail Spirits License or Wine and Spirits Wholesaler License only to someone who has been a resident of Oklahoma for the previous five years. Presumably ABLE, who requested the opinion, will now begin issuing licenses to otherwise qualified applicants regardless of how long they have lived in Okl...
Read more

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more