(Wikipedia) Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high if not complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism.

  • dope@lemm.eeOPEnglish
    33·
    10 months ago

    What the leader was an organization of scientists?

    Call it a “scientific totalitarianism”. Heck, look at the recent covid thing. If we were all forced at gunpoint to mask and vax. That would be a good thing, right?

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      10 months ago

      Scientists are just as fallible as other people. “Sciences” like phrenology and eugenics used to be in vogue. There’s nothing stopping similar bad science from gaining prominence in a technocracy. If there is an organization with absolute power it will attract people with unhealthy ambition and those people tend to use the tools at their disposal to consolidate their power. Systems need to be built to withstand the worst kinds of people, not built to empower the best kinds of people. It’s a nice idea but it doesn’t work in practice, imo.

      • dope@lemm.eeOPEnglish
        11·
        10 months ago

        My point is, if you knew what was right (Scientific being just one example) then forcing the (ignorant) people to do the right thing is good. This is obvious.

        You don’t let the kid drink a bottle of gasoline because the alternative is to infringe upon his freedom of choice.

        • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          In a utopia where you have a perfectly benevolent leader an autocracy would be great. My point is power attracts unscrupulous people which given enough time will shape policy to benefit themselves and consolidate power if there aren’t safeguards in place.

        • cecilkorik@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          10 months ago

          If you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that someone is ignorant of facts, and then sure you can call it obvious and good. But when nobody can agree what is reasonable, why is your perspective of good the one everyone must follow? It’s not always obvious. Don’t pretend it is. And things that are reasonable and obvious to you aren’t necessarily reasonable and obvious to others. You aren’t willing to embrace the diversity of human experience and opinion, so you won’t get the benefits of that diversity. Just because someone else has a different idea doesn’t make it wrong. If you think literally every idea that isn’t exactly the same as yours is wrong, then we’re wasting our time here anyway.

          So again, why is your path the one we’re picking? Even if I do agree with it, I am not willing to agree to it blindly, I want to know why we’re supposed to follow your advice/instructions/demands. At gunpoint or otherwise. And that’s why I’ll never follow a totalitarian, because totalitarians never have to explain themselves, and generally won’t. I hope you brought enough bullets if that’s your plan.