I agree with your post, and I've marveled at various perceived hypocrisies on both sides. I acknowledge that in some cases there is no actual hypocrisy, just nuanced views that don't fit a simple mold. But I also believe that partisanship for the sake of partisanship is more important to many people on both sides than any kind of deeper ideological consistency or integrity.

Merely exercising state powers is not authoritarianism. There are other necessary aspects that must exist. If a popularly-elected government orders a curfew that is not necessarily authoritarianism.

It's a semantic argument, but I generally agree. I'd say authoritarianism is an extremist endpoint on a spectrum. It's become a dirty word for obvious reasons, but I'm using the term in a relatively value-neutral / non-pejorative sense.

restating a prior sentiment: such dichotomies--left/right, authoritarian/libertarian--and their cross-products are cognitive traps. they inhibit understanding and obscure solution pathways.

so don't worry about the axis affiliations and critique the ideas themselves (as you imply you already do by not judging a priori).

fear-driven decision environments (as with the current pandemic) are ripe for power seizures (even if just incrementally). we should remain vigilant against that.

afaict, most US residents are following governmental requests (like physical distancing, washing hands, and self-quarantining when sick) because it's a reasonable and prudent response to a virus that's still relatively unknown but has the potential to be bad, not because we're coerced by said government. those admonitions provide (sometimes sparse) evidence, information, and rationale for doing so, rather than mainly relying on force.

that force is held back by governmental units because of the threat of backlash by residents. this keeps their power in check. don't give that up.

>that force is held back by governmental units because of the threat of backlash by residents. this keeps their power in check. don't give that up.

You seem to be implying that, absent such a threat, the government would be employing force against citizens regardless of their compliance, simply because they could get away with it. If so, is it not more likely that restraint is due to the purpose of the state's monopoly on force being to coerce compliance, and as such is simply not necessary when the public is already compliant?

In other words, that the government is holding itself in check far more than the public is?

for sure, it's the dynamic that matters to keep coercion in check, which is broader than any one constituency. but that constituency is important to the dynamic too.

> left/right, authoritarian/libertarian--and their cross-products are cognitive traps

No dispute. It's a classic leaky-abstraction problem; some models can be helpful in reasoning, but they're always imperfect at describing messy complex reality. (While it too is imperfect, I'm rather fond of the 8-axis political compass! [0])

A lot of our weird tribal coalitions are byproducts of a First-Past-The-Post voting system, which necessarily results in two parties, game-theoretically. IMO there is no more urgent policy issue than electoral reform, to something like Ranked Choice or Approval, so that our representatives are more reflective of our preferences.

> fear-driven decision environments (as with the current pandemic) is ripe for power seizures

This is true; I'm a big fan of Chomsky's admonition that "the burden of proof is on state power to justify itself". While I'm grateful for how many people are doing the right thing voluntarily (I'm genuinely surprised at the trust of citizens in science, at least in my neck of the woods), I do think a pandemic is a situation where judicious use of state power can be justified (forbidding gatherings over N people, for instance). It's a balancing act, and we must be very vigilant to see that "emergency" powers do not persist indefinitely, as they so often do (Patriot Act, etc).

[0] https://8values.github.io/

> "...some models can be helpful in reasoning..."

totally, models/stereotypes are useful shortcuts and aids. i was mainly advising against soley/overly relying on them. (and online quizzes are always fun!)

yes to election reform! especially curtailing/leveling money's influence, and de-gerrymandering, as both are unnecessary consolidations of power.

as for temporary/emergency powers, skepticism and resistance should correlate with the size of the governing body (somewhat ok with my mayor but not keen on my president exerting power domestically).

I would think (and hope) that, when it comes to the possibility of millions of deaths, ideology would be sacrificed to some extent.