Psychological research has long linked the prevalence of pathogens in a geographical area (1,2) with the prevalence of authoritarian regimes. This is no surprise to psychologists, for authoritarianism is linked to disgust sensitivity, which in turn is a natural disease avoidance reaction. It's why Hitler referred to Jews as rats and cockroaches, and why he used pesticide (Zyklon B ) to exterminate them. Hitler was driven by disgust sensitivity; the psychological mechanism for disease avoidance.
This fact explains quite nicely why people are suddenly so willing to give up their essential freedoms for the promise of safety since the advent of Covid-19. To become more authoritarian is the natural psychological reaction to the perceived threat of disease.
Please be wary of your natural inclination to give more powers to governments and corporations due to the increased risk of disease, we do not need another repeat of the horrors of the 20th century.
To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Sources:
(1)
https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/84qcm/providers/osfstorage/5e91c116f13535030dd53aee?direct=&mode=render(2)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641067/
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
My friend, this link is a very well documented fact in the psychological literature. Am I open to evidence to the contrary? Of course. I don't particularly want to write a long essay detailing the extensive evidence for this link and how it fits perfectly with the surrounding literature on personality, political belief and so on. However, if you really feel it necessary to substantiate my claim (which is mainstream psychology) then I can do so. Edit: I've actually done a decent amount of this in my reply to Happy_Killbot.
"I also stand by my statement that this case regards covid19 is nothing like Hitler referring to the Jews as a disease that needs to be exterminated."
So authoritarian attitudes and policies, and the drives underlying them have nothing to do with authoritarian regimes?
"Furthermore, during this global pandemic which began in late December, I haven't seen many countries become authoritarian at all with the exception of China who was already authoritarian to begin to with."
I'm not sure that you understand. The political compass has four dimensions. There is left and right and there is authoritarian and libertarian. Things can be more right or left wing and things can be more authoritarian or more libertarian. Western regimes have become more authoritarian because they have taken liberties from their citizens.
"I have to disagree. Also, global pandemics and terrorism are two different things; the anti-terror legislation is a discussion for another day."
When, in your knowledge, has a government ever willingly given up powers that it has given itself? I guarantee you that contact tracing is here to stay and that if another pandemic occurs people will ocne again be locked down.
"Furthermore, there is an abundance of sufficient data to suggest that more deaths would be lost without lockdown measures. This stands to reason since this is a disease that grows at an exponential rate."
As I have previously showed, the mortality rate of this virus is far lower than previously believed (3,4,5,6,7,8). The reason for the initial rate appearing far higher is sampling bias. Most cases are relatively mild or symptom-less.
"Coronavirus Cases:
4,422,147
view by country
Deaths:
297,552
Recovered:
1,654,819"
The studies I linked suggest far higher rates of infection.
"These are also known cases; the amount is probably far greater."
Exactly, which means the mortality rate is lower. I've mentioned this before to you but if someone dies while they are infected with Covid-19, that is added to the numbers regardless of the cause of death.
"Also, according to leading mathematical models without good lockdown measures, the death toll would be in the millions in just a matter of months."
Those models were wrong. As shown above, mortality rates are lower than initially believed, due to the sampling bias of early studies. Also, the lock-downs are expected to kill millions, as previously discussed.
"We need to balance everything out with the economy, controlling the virus, and also other matters such as starving people. And from where I am standing most countries are trying to do this anyway. As for the United States I'd say their lockdown measures are one of the most modest compared with many other countries across the globe."
In some states they are, in others they are not. I believe I have put forth a good case for why the threat of the virus has been over-exaggerated and why the lock-downs will be disastrous for both the economy and for life. This is not to say that people should not take precautions, it is to say that in this case the solution of lock-downs causes more problems than it fixes.
Sources:
(3) https://www.biospace.com/article/multiple-studies-suggest-covid-19-mortality-rate-may-be-lower-than-expected-/
(4) https://www.livescience.com/death-rate-lower-than-estimates.html
(5) https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/los-angeles-study-suggests-virus-much-more-widespread-1.4904990
(6) https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200418/new-model-shows-covid-more-widespread-less-severe
(7) https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1278393/Germany-news-economy-threat-Peter-Altmaier-coronavirus-return-COVID-19-latest
(8) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/09/many-people-may-already-have-immunity-coronavirus-german-study/
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's an old hypothesis (1). I sadly cannot link most of my archived studies on this issue as they are on my hard drive, not publicly available and copyrighted. You'll find a lot of studies cited in the introductions of the papers, for they go over the background of research on the issue.
A relevant example might be found in the first paper I originally cited in the OP;
"Firstly, at the level of individual psychology, when the perception of infection risk is elevated, individuals tend to adopt more conformist and conservative attitudes (Helzer & Pizarro, 2011; Inbar, Pizarro, Bloom, 2009; Jones & Fitness, 2008; Murray & Schaller, 2012; Wu & Chang, 2012)."
Or perhaps, from the same introduction;
"Higher levels of parasite stress are related to greater regional political authoritarianism and social conservatism (Murray, Schaller, & Suedfeld, 2013; Terrizzi, Shook, McDaniel, 2013; Thornhill, Fincher, & Aran, 2009; but see: Horita & Takezawa, 2018), prioritization of obedience and intolerance of nonconformity (Murray, Trudeau, & Schaller, 2011; Tybur et al., 2016), heightened collectivism and endorsement of binding moral concerns (Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, Schaller, 2008; Van Leeuwen, Park, Koenig, & Graham, 2012), moral vitalism (Bastian et al., 2019), and increased frequency of intrastate armed conflict (Letendre, Fincher, & Thornhill, 2010). Higher ecological prevalence of infectious diseases therefore appears to promote societal norms that are more conservative and authoritarian."
"That context out of the way, we can finally start talking about where this works and where it breaks down. These theories do not have anything to do with the Nazi ideology which lead Hitler to his final solution. This is not to say that there is no connection here, but simply put this theory is misapplied in psychoanalyzing Hitler. It is likely that Hitler already had authoritarian tenancies and the independently labeled Jews as diseases thanks to his anti-Semitic ideas."
You may find this likely, however the link between authoritarianism and disgust sensitivity is clear (2). We can further break down disgust sensitivity as a construct but for our current discussion it seems unnecessary. A lack of openness (one of the "Big Five" personality traits) is associated with disgust sensitivity (3) which in turn is associated with authoritarianism (4,5). Hitler certainly acted as if he was driven by disgust sensitivity, and at the very least he capitalized on the disgust sensitivity of others.
"The global pandemic has lead to a preference for authoritarian policies, such as widespread respect for professional order's to stay home and bans on non-essential work. What can also be noted, is that regions that already have authoritarian tenancies, such as China, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea (North Korea maybe?) have all been very effective at combating the disease and getting the situation under control as quickly as possible."
So we agree.
"What the theory predicts is that the tendency of authoritarian governments to succeed where libertarian governance fails is what leads to their success across many generations. Read in this way, it could therefore be argued that authoritarianism is required to limit the spread of disease. (I'm not arguing this point, just point it out)"
We shall see, for the upcoming financial crash is going to cause untold damage, most especially to those places that were placed in lock-down.
"While I am completely against authoritarianism as a permanent fixture in our society, a minarchist society has a serious vulnerability to pathogens."
I don't think there has ever been a time when a nation has forbade all it's citizens from even leaving their homes without permission. I'd also suggest that the mortality rate of this virus is too low for such a response to be proportional, as detailed with many studies in my other posts.
"However, if we have learned anything since 911 it is that getting rid of authoritarian policies is nigh impossible."
100% agreed. In the case of the contact tracing, for example, I see not why the governments of the world will ever cease this practice.
"What we must do moving forward is to set our society up with the proper checks and balances to be able to ramp up authoritarian policies temporarily and in response to catastrophe in such a way that this power will expire, thus limiting it."
I agree to some extent, but the problem is that it sets a precedent for these authoritarian policies to return, for example, when there is a new infectious disease.
"A preemptive plan for the rapid deployment of preventative measures could allow us and our society to get the best of both worlds- limiting freedoms only to the point necessary to protect the public's health."
What would this entail?
Sources:
(1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23658718?dopt=Abstract
(2) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171091
(3) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222798873_Disgust_Sensitivity_as_a_Function_of_the_Big_Five_and_Gender
(4) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
(5) https://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/the-2-main-personality-types-of-the-politically-correct
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.96  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.92  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are still misapplying these studies to reach the conclusions you are arriving at. Even if we assume that Hitler was low in openness and high in disgust sensitivity which made him as an individual more likely to hold his authoritarian attitudes, this is inadequate to connect parasite-stress theory to the Nazi ideology and Hitler's final solution because it fails to demonstrate a causal link between the two.
Low openness/disgust sensitivity in Hitler --> Authoritarianism ---> ????? ---> Parasite-stress theory ---> ????? ---> Nazism ---> Hitler's final solution
China and South Korea are already back at full operational capacity. The point I am making here is that according to parasite-stress theory authoritarianism thrives in a parasitic environment, and decimates libertarian states like the US. If we take the study seriously, then it deals a major blow to libertarian ideas because of the financial damage.
I would argue that the reason we have never seen this in the past is because the means to enact such a policy are only recently available via information technology such as the internet and advances in the understanding of pathogens.
The way forward is to put this power in everyone's hands.
That's literally the idea. You make your state fungible in such a way that it can be authoritarian when it needs to be and libertarian when it can be.
1. A detailed plan for pandemic response, stockpiles of medical equipment, designated personnel, and equipment (Basically everything Obama had that Trump got rid of)
2. Legislative plans in place which would allow temporary control be delegated to the designated personnel. This power would have a time limit, after which the individuals holding the designated power must be changed (to prevent them from hording power so they have motivation to actually fix the problem)
3. Education and training materials set aside to promote safety and compliance. (viruses are bad M'kay?)
4. Special emergency funds or loan provisions set aside to limit economic damage in the case of a large scale outbreak.
Basically, everything would work like this: A virus outbreak gets into the country and congress turns over some control to designated experts who are chosen ahead of time based on qualifications. This person would have access to the funding and resources to coordinate action against the outbreak. They would also have limited control of policy, although any such policies would need to be ratified by congress and approved by the president. The idea is of course, to never get to this point by enabling a rapid response. After a set time limit, this person would no longer have control and the second in line will relieve the first.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Nice to see you again . As for covid I don't really have muc of an opion on that anymore.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra