Received from a contact of mine, currently using the handle, “Pyro”:
Knowledge is impossible without observing reality. That
is why mountebanks and power seekers, seeking to deceive,
always and must find some excuse (eg. faith, suppression
of heresy, blasphemy, "the science is settled," the
cautionary principle, a nihilistic rejection of the
legitimacy of cognition, your own good, nationalism,
patriotism, for the poor, for the widows and orphans,
for the sick, etc.) to dissuade or prevent people from
doing so.
To the contemporary mind set it is plausible, even so
obvious as to be unquestionable, that it is possible
to achieve any end by the application of sufficient
coercion and, indeed, that that is the only way to
accomplish an end with certainty. This belief makes
the promotion of a crisis, real or imaginary, an
effective tactic (as famously advocated by Rahm
Emanuel) for the development of totalitarian power.
Clearly this is what is taking place as a result of
the coronavirus pandemic, which has been used as an
excuse to impose on a large part of the human race,
with their substantial acquiescence, a previously
unthinkable suicidal lockdown. Besides politicians'
own propensities, prevalent popular beliefs place
them under almost irresistible political pressure to
take such totalitarian measures.
The Economist Magazine smugly expresses the conventional
wisdom:
Leaders section: "Everything´s under control"
...
For believers in limited government and open markets,
covid-19 poses a problem. The state must act
decisively. But history suggests that after crises
the state does not give up all the ground it has
taken. Today that has implications not just for
the economy, but also for the surveillance of
individuals.
It is no accident that the state grows during crises.
Governments might have stumbled in the pandemic, but
they alone can coerce and mobilise vast resources
rapidly. Today they are needed to enforce business
closures and isolation to stop the virus. Only they
can help offset the resulting economic collapse. ...
...
and suggests that the totalitarian changes are likely to
be permanent.
Is this conventional wisdom about the necessity and
efficacy of totalitarianism true? Is, as most people
believe, liberty only an impractical luxury that, for
transcendent reasons, like survival, must be surrendered
in emergencies? There are powerful reasons to think it
is just the opposite. But aside from the logic of the
theoretical arguments, the ultimate resolution of the
issue requires a scientific test of the matter; which
would be to try both approaches and see what the real
consequences are. To look at reality requires an
experimental control case.
Such an experiment would be difficult to deliberately
conduct for obvious ethical reasons. Also, it would be
rejected by the advocates of totalitarianism on the basis
that it would subject free people to unnecessary death
and disease that coercion could avoid; it would never
occur to them to consider that their methods might be
decreasing well being rather than reducing death and
disease. And they would never be willing to allow the
possibility of conducting a test that might show, in
practice, that they are wrong.
However, in spite of the overwhelming pressure to conform,
the country of Sweden has so far resisted adopting the
worst and most destructive totalitarian measures. If they
persist, their experience may offer a bit of a control
case to observe.
Also, surprisingly, Nicaragua, of all places, may provide
another one. So far it appears that, aside from isolating
themselves on a private island, the only measures that the
government of the dictatorial couple has imposed in Nicaragua
is organizing marches and large public meetings to chant
slogans against the coronavirus. Nevertheless, the people
of Nicaragua seem well informed and to be taking their own
private measures to protect themselves while going about
their normal business. We will see what the results are.
If these two control cases turn out with favorable results
we can be assured that the facts will be suppressed by the
political classes in the rest of the world to avoid being
held responsible for the unnecessary evil they have caused.
Rules and obedience have never elevated anyone to heroism and greatness., but I know what does, and I discovered it in the rubble of 9/11.
Imagine a pretty spring day. You’re standing on your front porch or some other pleasant vantage point and looking out at a sunlit landscape: trees, grass, and singing birds. Then your five-year-old child or grandchild walks up to you and tugs on your hand to get your attention. You turn and the child asks, “What kind of world is this?”
“
Lord Acton wrote that power tends to corrupt, but I’m going to say flat out that it does corrupt. I’ll go further and say that it’s an addiction (probably every bit as bad as cocaine), and that the lust for control is one of its primary drivers.
Humans are not naturally stupid. They are not naturally bad. Fear, however, distorts them, weakens them, and makes them far less effective than they’d naturally be. Fear, in its many guises, is the great enemy of mankind, and it’s time that we addressed it head on. 
When writing historical things, I try to include perspective from people who actually lived through the events. And for money issues in the US, I’m able to do that back to about 1905.
