Is Political Oppression the Wave of the Future?

Political conservatives in the US and elsewhere have decried Covid-related mask and vaccination requirements as government oppression. They claim to be defending their freedoms, and the freedoms of everyone else from government overreach. Many of these conservatives champion widespread gun ownership as the best means of deterring or responding to oppressive governments.

However, it seems that in some respects freedom has increased since World War II. There’s increased access to divorce, birth control, and abortion, as well as the right to same-sex marriage. But such personal freedoms are not what many conservatives are worried about. They foresee and want to forestall the loss of basic freedoms, such as occurred in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and that persists in Cuba and China.

These conservatives have reason to worry. In the 20th Century more people died as a result of government oppression than as a result of private individuals and groups exercising their freedom. Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Edi Amin, and many others retarded progress in their countries while clinging to power through ruthless means that oppressed and killed ordinary citizens. As I write this, Russia is trying to impose such oppression on the people of Ukraine.

Increasing technological complexity adds weight to their concerns. Consider home heating and cooling. Our lives are more pleasant than in Abraham Lincoln’s day when people used logs for heating and had few means of cooling themselves. But our improved circumstances depend on having natural gas and electricity at our disposal, neither of which we generate or store ourselves. Instead, we’re hooked up to sources out of our control. We’re at the mercy of international markets and complex infrastructure.

Our transportation also puts us in jeopardy. In the old days, people could usually walk to where they needed to go. The availability of cars has allowed us to spread out, so in most cases walking isn’t a realistic option. But few of us can fix our own cars or get gas or electricity for them except through elaborate national and international systems, putting us again in jeopardy should those systems fail.

The electronic infrastructure is equally central to our lives. We receive money, save money, spend money, and have money attributed to us through the electronic infrastructure that few of us have any means of controlling. In short, modern life is increasingly dominated by dependence on products and infrastructure that we can’t control, and this puts us in jeopardy if malevolent forces take them over.

At the same time, technology has produced more potent and efficient ways of impairing or destroying the systems vital to our lives. We have more powerful small scale explosives, more effective guns, and more elaborate ways of electronic disruption of infrastructure that’s used by banks, manufacturers, and government. As the technology that we depend upon becomes more elaborate, and supply chains longer, methods of disruption become more available and more destabilizing. When computers and servers go down, it’s now hard to meet our vital needs. A single actor can now jeopardize the lives of millions.

Under these conditions, it makes sense for governments to increase their capabilities in surveillance and intervention, which most of us welcome. Air travel is a good example. Before entering a commercial aircraft, we’re patted down, disallowed more than a few ounces of liquids, required to remove our shoes, and often screened by a device that sees through our clothing. Few people object to these indignities because they’re necessary to keep us safe.

In general, when the technologies that most of us enjoy put us at increased jeopardy from evil-doers, we welcome government-imposed intrusions into our privacy and freedom. Governments now use many new technologies to keep us safe. They spy on us through our use of the Internet; they use facial recognition systems to identify potentially dangerous individuals; and they infiltrate suspect organizations.

But then how are we to keep ourselves safe from powerful governments that use such intrusive methods? As Lord Acton pointed out, power corrupts. So, militant conservatives have reason to worry about the increasing power of governments, including our own.

However, the reaction of having more weapons, such as automatic rifles, hand grenades, and other implements of war in private hands is counterproductive. Such a response to fears of government oppression is misguided because it’s counterproductive. Armed private militias create jeopardy for most people, and this leads to the increased popularity of government surveillance and intervention in our lives, just as the jeopardy of air travel increases our tolerance of intrusive inspections as we board a plane.

It seems that political engagement, free speech, and a free press, rather than militant preparation, are the best methods of retaining our freedoms. I hope, but can’t be certain, that this will be enough to forestall government overreach and oppression.