[extropy-chat] Tyranny in place

[Joseph Bloch]

Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 10/1/06, *Joseph Bloch* <transhumanist at goldenfuture.net 
> <mailto:transhumanist at goldenfuture.net>> wrote:
>
>     I hope, I truly hope, that you wake up from your Republican-hating
>     ways
>     to realize that this nation really does face an external threat of
>     hitherto-unseen proportions. It's not about people in power in the
>     U.S.
>
>
> But this sort of thing isn't hitherto-unseen at all. Hitler and 
> Mussolini used the argument that they needed power to protect the 
> people against communism. Communism was a real threat (it killed tens 
> of millions of people, far more than the Islamic fundamentalists have) 
> - but fascism was not the answer. It isn't the answer to Islamic 
> fundamentalism today either.
>
> I think the threat of terrorism is greatly overstated, but I agree 
> there is a threat and it has to be fought. It does not at all follow 
> that we in the West should tolerate erosion of our civil liberties by 
> our own governments. It's not just that it's not necessary - _it's 
> also not helpful_. If you have a problem, and you try to solve it by 
> surrendering your freedom, you now have two problems.



I disagree with the false dichotomy you have presented. Fascism and 
Communism were not opposites. Rather, they were both merely forms of 
Totalitarianism with the window-dressing changed. In allying themselves 
with the Soviet Union against the Axis, the Allies were merely using one 
form of Totalitarianism to help defeat another. They could just as 
easily have reversed the process, allying themselves with Nazi Germany 
against the USSR, and then fought the Axis thereafter.

Islamist totalitarianism is no different in its goal and broad form than 
either Naziism or Soviet Communism. It seeks global domination, and does 
through through the totalitarian control of the populace (in this 
specific case, that control is achieved through politico-religious, 
rather than purely political ideology).

The West managed to tolerate "erosion of our civil liberties" during 
both World War II and the Cold War, in the name of survival. We managed 
to escape with those liberties relatively unscathed.

It is indeed a conundrum. The very civil liberties we hold dear are used 
as a weapon against the societies which embrace them, with the goal of 
using the forms of Western civilization to cause its downfall. History 
has shown us that as the threats to Western civilization by those who 
would use its institutions to destroy it grows, the freedoms granted by 
those institutions are restricted, lessening the threat. Once the threat 
is removed, the restrictions are loosened. I see no reason to believe 
that same self-correcting mechanism is not still in operation.

Joseph