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

Dear GT Bynum, Let the Children Play

I live close to a large City of Tulsa park that has a golf course, walking trail, green spaces, and a couple of playgrounds. My (almost) three-year old son loves the playgrounds, and often begs us during walks in our neighborhood to detour to “for-chun” (LaFortune Park). This seemingly innocent request can become a hassle when we don’t really have time, but we indulge him as much as possible. It’s good for kids to play outside, especially with other kids they might not otherwise come into contact with. But sometimes we have to contend with an upset toddler who doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the playground right this minute. I’m not complaining, every parent of young kids deals with similar stuff. But during the COVID lockdown, we’ve had to contend with an altogether different LaFortune Park situation with our son. As part of the mayor’s shelter-in-place overkill, all city-owned playgrounds were closed “ indefinitely .” This wasn’t a guideline or suggestion, the city meant busine

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 episod

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best