The worldwide movement toward "limited authoritarianism," already well under way but dramatically accelerated by the coronavirus, is driven by the elite consensus that ordinary people cannot be trusted with so much freedom.

"Limited authoritarianism" is the best phrase for what the elite have in mind. They have decided that a growing list of topics are simply off the table. Consensus has been reached, and no further input from voters will be permitted on those topics.
This is a natural consequence of the progressive ideology, which is inherently authoritarian, although it peddles itself in the early stage with lots of jibber-jabber freedom and liberty. Progressives by definition believe that the growth of the State can never be reversed.
Every time the State grows - taking more money from the private sector, issuing regulations, criminalizing activities that used to be free - it is declaring that the people can no longer be trusted to make certain decisions. This is the inescapable logic of statism.
You can't be trusted to spend that dollar wisely, so the State will take it from you. You can't be trusted to make those decisions about your health care, so the State will make them for you. You can't be trusted to sell your own labor, so the State will control employment.
The best way to get people to go along with this constant dwindling of their liberty is to make them distrust and fear each other. That way, the State can posture as their loving defenders, keeping them safe from the predations of other free people.
As we move into the era of limited authoritarianism, the previous steady erosion of liberties and theft of money is no longer disguised with gentle maternal language. Now it's time to firmly establish a hard core of power that voters must obey, and can never dream of controlling.
The next steps toward authoritarianism simply can't be disguised as loving, maternal government taking good care of its child-citizens. It requires a level of obedience - the most important resource in a statist system - that simply cannot abide resistance, or even dissent.
There will be too many designated losers in the next step, too many reductions in the quality of life for everyone, and the people have to stop daydreaming about controlling the elite with their votes. They must accept the limits of "democracy."
The emerging consensus among the global elite is that "democracy" can only be saved by sharply limiting it. Our mighty global institutions and their accords cannot be subjected to the will of selfish, short-sighted, foolish, voters with nationalistic inclinations.
Many ideological vehicles have been driven toward this destination, most obviously climate change, which explicitly asserts that people cannot be free to make decisions - or cast votes - that would "harm the Earth."
And then the pandemic arrived, and every gas pedal on those ideological vehicles was slammed down to the metal. The global elite now believes, almost universally, that only authoritarian governments can deal with such a massive crisis. Disobedience and dissent are dangerous!
That pandemic mindset will not be allowed to dissipate. It's too politically useful. We will soon hear of many other "crises" that are just as bad as Covid-19 and demand the same sort of "unified" response, meaning no dissent or dissidence can be allowed. This has already begun.
As statism shades into authoritarianism, the ruling elite will say they're still acting in the public interest, using their superior intelligence and wisdom to make the dwindling field of individual liberty more secure. The playground of democracy grows smaller, but safer.
The difference is that it will be made increasingly clear that voters no longer have a say about these important topics. Even the polite fiction of restraining power with your votes will be abandoned. There will be no pretense that the authoritarian core serves at your pleasure.
The most obvious manifestation of this, now well under way, is the crackdown on dissent. Once you lose the right to vote against power, it follows that you should no longer be allowed to disagree with it. Such disagreement is pointlessly dangerous and counterproductive.
Pointless dissent against the authoritarian core serves only to dilute that precious resource of obedience. You can't change anything - you're not allowed to vote against the great consensus of the ruling class - so your dissent is just aimless vandalism.
The Western world generally has constitutional restrictions on how vigorously the State can suppress dissent, or how much behavior it can compel, because it is still required to pretend the people get to vote on everything and are supreme over their government.
"Limited authoritarianism" gets around this by using corporate power and political activists as instruments of control and obedience. The State has powerful partners in the private sector who will enforce decrees that could not be issued lawfully.
The authoritarian core is almost fully formed now, its hard shell forged during the pandemic. Free people have been taught that disobedience and free speech are dangerous. There are fewer decrees you can argue against, and increasingly, fewer you can vote against.
Remember, always: Those who tell you that only a bigger, richer, less democratic State can deliver peace, health, and justice are saying that YOU cannot be trusted to find those things. After Covid-19, after the 2020 election, you will be trusted with much less. /end

More from John Hayward

Excellent analysis! One of our biggest problems is that people think "democracy," all by itself, is a sufficient check on power. I frankly don't understand how anyone can still believe that, but of course they probably won't be taught otherwise in school.


The disturbing flip side of thinking democracy is a magic talisman against tyranny is the belief that democracy sanctifies power - the essence of majoritarianism. "They can't be dictators if we can vote them out of office!" is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world.

The restraints placed on power are MORE important than the process of choosing who gets to wield it. You would be more free under a tightly restrained hereditary monarch than in a "democracy" with totalitarian centralized power.

The human race learned, fairly recently, that elected government is the approach most likely to maximize liberty and human rights, but where on Earth did we get the notion that it's perfect and sufficient all by itself? The world is full of tyrannies that hold elections.

"Democracy" would be the worst of all worlds - tyranny by mob rule, with the oppressors claiming their every fancy was fully and completely sanctified because they won a vote, and why should we let a stubborn minority thwart The Will of the People?

More from Society

You May Also Like

I'm going to do two history threads on Ethiopia, one on its ancient history, one on its modern story (1800 to today). 🇪🇹

I'll begin with the ancient history ... and it goes way back. Because modern humans - and before that, the ancestors of humans - almost certainly originated in Ethiopia. 🇪🇹 (sub-thread):


The first likely historical reference to Ethiopia is ancient Egyptian records of trade expeditions to the "Land of Punt" in search of gold, ebony, ivory, incense, and wild animals, starting in c 2500 BC 🇪🇹


Ethiopians themselves believe that the Queen of Sheba, who visited Israel's King Solomon in the Bible (c 950 BC), came from Ethiopia (not Yemen, as others believe). Here she is meeting Solomon in a stain-glassed window in Addis Ababa's Holy Trinity Church. 🇪🇹


References to the Queen of Sheba are everywhere in Ethiopia. The national airline's frequent flier miles are even called "ShebaMiles". 🇪🇹
https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.

https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d


Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.


...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.


Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.